Oh dear. With the Conservative cash-for-access row all over the papers, Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, was given the job of appearing on the Today programme in the 8.10 slot to hold back the deluge - and he failed dismally. He could not give Evan Davis a good answer to his question about why David Cameron would not publish the names of all Tory donors he has entertained in his Number 10 flat and at one stage he appeared to dismiss the issue as "nonsense". I'll post more from the interview shortly. At 8.30am there's normally a routine strategy meeting at Downing Street. They certainly need a strategy today, because at the moment it feels as if they are on the run.

I'll be following all the developments in this story through the day. Here are the issues to follow closely.

An inquiry: Labour want a full, independent inquiry. The Tories have launched an internal inquiry, but they have already had to accept that it won't be led by Lord Feldman, the Conservative co-chairman. My guess - and it's only a guess - is that they will appoint an independent-(ish) figure to take charge. Perhaps someone is ringing around pro-Tory QCs already.

A Commons statement?: Ed Miliband wants Cameron to make a statement in the Commons. You would not normally expect a Commons statement, on an issue like this, but John Bercow, the Speaker, seems to enjoy making life difficult for ministers and it is conceivable that he could grant an urgent question on this.

A police inquiry?: Mark Adams, the whistleblower who triggered the Sunday Times investigation, confirmed this morning that he has asked the police to investigate because he thought yesterday's revelations suggested that in the past the Tories have flouted the law banning political donations from foreigners. Given what happened to the cash-for-honours investigation, the police reaction to this can probably involves the words "hole" and "head". But they have said they are assessing the allegation.

Party funding talks: In response to yesterday's allegations, these are being revived. But the parties have already spend six years trying to reach a deal on this without making progress.

I will also be keeping an eye on other political developments today - Cameron is giving a speech on demential at 11.45am which he will use announce that funding for demential research will be doubled, reaching £66m by 2015 - but mostly I will be focusing on cash-for-access. I'll post a lunchtime summary at around 1pm and another in the afternoon.

If you want to follow me on Twitter, I'm on @AndrewSparrow.

And if you're a hardcore fan, you can follow @gdnpoliticslive. It's an automated feed that tweets the start of every new post that I put on the blog.

Here's more from the Francis Maude interview on the Today programme. I've taken the quotes from PoliticsHome.

• Maude said there was "nothing remotely improper" about political parties having clubs for donors offering access to politicians.

We've always been very open about that. There's so secret about it. You would join the Leader's Group, and the Leader's Group have periodic dinners with the prime minister and other leader figures. There's nothing remotely improper about that, or new, and all parties do that.





• He rejected claims that donors could buy influence. "The idea that Conservative donors can by themselves influence policy is absurd," he said. "It's just not true." Anyone could suggest ideas to the government, he said.

• He said it was unreasonable to expect David Cameron to identify all his dinner guests. "Nobody has ever suggested that in any country in the world," he said. Events for donors, like those organised by the Leader's Group, were quite different from events in Cameron's private life "where he and his wife have friends to supper."

• He dismissed the idea that donors could buy dinner in Cameron's private flat as "nonsense".

Lord Newton, the former Tory social security secretary and leader of the Commons, has died. Here's what the Press Association have filed.

Former Commons leader Lord Newton of Braintree has died at the age of 74, his family announced today.

Tony Newton became Tory MP for Braintree, Essex, in 1974, holding on to the seat for 23 years before being made a peer.

He began his Government career in the Whips' office and held a number of ministerial roles under Margaret Thatcher.

They included a stint as health minister, an area in which he retained a keen interest over his political career, contributing to debates in the Upper Chamber over the controversial Health and Social Care Bill in recent weeks.

In 1989 he was made social security secretary and three years later was appointed Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons.

He died yesterday afternoon in Colchester Hospital following a long illness.

He is survived by wife Patricia, two daughters, Polly and Jessica, three stepchildren, Robin, Emma and Sukie, and four grandchildren.

In a statement, his family said: "In spite of his worsening health, he was determined to carry on contributing to public life right up until the last few days.

"He was a remarkable man and we will miss him very much."

Rupert Murdoch (pictured), that great beacon of propriety in public life, has been pronouncing on the cash-for-access scandal on Twitter. Here are his thoughts.

Great Sunday Times scoop. What was Cameron thinking? No-one, rightly or wrongly, will believe his story. Cameron should have just followed history and flogged some seats in the Lords, if they still have value! precedents of centuries . Of course there must be a full independent inquiry on both sides. In great detail, and with consequences. Trust must be established. Without trust, democracy, and order will go.

Lord Levy (pictured), the Labour fundraiser, told the Today programme that when he was raising money for the party, anyone giving £250,000 would have probably ended up having dinner with Tony Blair. But they would not have been invited to Number 10 or Chequers, he said.

I would have said you'd have expected to have met [Blair] for dinner, but at a private home and that would have been a social dinner ... No dinners would take place at Number 10 or at Chequers and that is a key difference.

He also said that when he was raising money for Labour offering donors the opportunity to influence policy was "absolutely banned".

I've taken the quotes from PoliticsHome.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has published an analysis of David Cameron's plans to introduce a minimum price for alcohol. It says that a 40pm minimum unit price would raise up to £850m for the drinks industry and that it would be better to force prices up by raising alcohol duty, so that the revenue benefits the Treasury.

(If this is the case, can anyone explain why the drinks industry are so opposed to a minimum unit price?)

Michael Dugher, the shadow Cabinet Office minister, has been commenting on the cash-for-access affair for Labour. These are the main points he has been making. I've taken the quotes from PoliticsHome.

• Dugher said David Cameron should be "more forthcoming" about his meetings with Tory donors in his private flat.



• He said there had to be an independent inquiry into the affair.

It's just not acceptable or credible for, in any way at all, the Conservative party to investigate themselves. It's really doing a News International - you remember with phone hacking last summer, News International said leave it with us, we'll have a look at it and come back to you - well that's not good enough. We need an independent inquiry.

• He said that Labour was will to re-open talks about party funding reform, but that the party would want to retain the current system of union funding where union members have to opt out if they do not want to pay the political levy.

Earlier Francis Maude said that no country in the world would expect the prime minister to name the guests he or she invites for dinner on a private basis. (See 9.25am.) But they probably would in Sweden, according to Dan Shearer on Twitter.

The Press Association have posted an obituary of Lord Newton by Chris Moncrieff.

Here it is.

Lord Newton of Braintree, a former leader of the House of Commons, was said to be the only person, apart from the couple themselves, who was aware of the affair between Edwina Currie and John Major.

It was a secret which he honoured. If word had ever got out, it is almost certain that Mr Major would never have become prime minister.

Mrs Currie and Mr Major - as he then was - needed one, just one, trustworthy person to be aware of their relationship in the event of a crisis in the Commons when they had to be brought back to the House for a vote.

Despite harbouring this explosive secret alone for so many years, until Mrs Currie revealed it in a book, Lord Newton steered clear of all the sleaze which dominated and tarnished John Major's administration.

Indeed, he was once jocularly dubbed "a mud-free Tory who could rise clean to the top".

Tony Newton entered the House of Commons in 1974 as MP for Braintree, a seat he represented until 1997 when he became Lord Newton of Braintree.

He was educated at Trinity College, Oxford, and spent 14 years at the Conservative Central Office research department.

His stay there was interrupted by an unsuccessful attempt in 1970 to capture the Labour stronghold of Sheffield Brightside.

After his election in 1974, he became junior social security minister in 1982 and was promoted to minister for social security and the disabled in 1984 before switching to health minister in 1986.

He was appointed social security secretary in 1989, and quickly gained a reputation as a doughty fighter for a department whose budget demands inevitably brought it into regular behind-the-scenes conflict with the Treasury.

Previously, as chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Mr Newton co-ordinated Mrs Thatcher's inner-city policies. Ultimately, in 1992, he became lord president of the council and leader of the House of Commons.

His first marriage, by which he had two daughters, ended in divorce. He remarried in 1986.

The Conservative party has eight different clubs for donors, ranging from one for those giving £50,000 a year (the Leader's Group) to one for those giving £50 a month (Party Patrons). We've got a full list of them here.

On BBC News this morning Sir Christopher Kelly (pictured), the chairman of the committee on standards in public life, said that these clubs should not offer access to politicians.

The truth is that, although all this controversy currently is about the Conservative party, in one form or another all the parties run donors clubs where quite publicly they're offering access in return for large donations, and that must be wrong.

It's good to see that someone's having fun with the cash-for-access story.

You can read all today's Guardian politics stories here. And all the politics stories filed yesterday, including some in today's paper, are here.

As for the rest of the papers, here are four cash-for-access articles that are particularly interesting.

• Iain Martin in the Telegraph says there were warnings this would happen.

In recent weeks, I have heard mutterings that Downing Street has been operating a recklessly ill-judged open-door policy. Earlier this month, someone whose work brings him into regular contact with Number 10 told me that he was worried: "If you've got enough cash and you want to get through the front door to talk about planning or whatever bothers you, then you can get in." The cumulative impression is toxic for the Tories, particularly after a budget in which the Chancellor announced the removal of the 50p tax band.

• Mary Ann Sieghart in the Independent says David Cameron should now embrace the committee on standards in public life proposals in full.

After yesterday's embarrassment, though, maybe Cameron needs to be the one to claim political credit for reforming the system. He reacted more quickly than Gordon Brown to the MP' expenses scandal and the public rewarded him for it. Now he has a chance to do the same on party funding. His best hope of putting the Cruddas horrors behind him is to back Kelly in full, and ask us each for a paltry 50p a year to do so. It's cheap at the price.





• Andrew Pierce in the Daily Mail profiles Peter Cruddas.

It is not just Mr Cruddas's language, and habit of boasting about his political and royal connections, which has disturbed many senior Tories. It is that he has left them vulnerable to attack once again. One senior Tory said: 'Cruddas was a likeable bloke but completely out of his depth. He was absolutely reckless in promising policy changes which he could not deliver. 'It's a disaster to have lost a second Tory treasurer so soon after the last one. The last thing we need are questions flying again over our treasurers.'

• The Sun in its leader complains about wealthy people having undue influence over British politics. (Yes, I know, you have to laugh ....)



THE MPs expenses scandal proved politicians cannot be trusted to be honest and open about money. So the revelation that Tory treasurer Peter Cruddas offered rich potential donors access to David Cameron will only confirm the public's belief that Westminster is awash with charlatans and shysters. This is not some paltry wrangle over party funding. Allowing wealthy individuals or groups to lobby our leading politicians by waving a chequebook undermines democracy.

I'm off to the Number 10 lobby briefing now. I'll post again after 11.30am.

Just back from the lobby.

• David Cameron will make a statement about the cash-for-access affair at the end of his speech (ie, at about 12ish). I'm told he will give details about the internal Tory inquiry into the affair.

• Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, will make a statement in the Commons at 3.30pm about party funding.

I'll post more from the lobby in a moment.

Here are the key points from the Number 10 lobby briefing.



• Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, will announce details of how he plans to revive talks on the reform of party funding in a Commons statement at 3.30pm. Number 10 said the government was still committed to proceeding "on a cross-party basis".



• Number 10 said that its transparency was "unmatched" because it publishes lists of the people that the prime minister meets on official business.



• Downing Street will publish further details of ministerial meetings within the next few days. The government is committed to publishing details of all ministerial meetings and the next list will cover July to September last year. Asked why the list had been delayed, the prime minister's spokeswoman said the government had never said when it would release this information. The last list was published in December, she said. And it took time to compile the information.

• Downing Street confirmed that the list of ministerial meetings being published would only cover official meetings, and not any private meetings that have taken place at Chequers or Number 10. Asked what would determine whether a meeting was deemed an offical one, the spokewoman said an official meeting would be one where official business was discussed and notes were taken by an official.

There was also one important statement that was not about cash-for-access.



• The government is still opposed to a third runway at Heathrow.

Cameron is speaking about cash-for-access now.

Cameron says what Peter Cruddas said was wrong.

No donation is accepted by the Conservative party unless all compliance procedures are met with, he says.

• Lord Gold, a lawyer and a Conservative peer, will head the internal inquiry into cash-for-access.

• Cameron has held three diners in his Number 10 flat with significant donors to the Conservative party, he says. There was also one post-election dinner at which some of the guests were donors. Details of these donors will be published.

• The names of those attending Conservative fundraising dinners will be published.



• Cameron has renewed his offer to work with Labour to impose a cap on individual donations to political parties.

Cameron is now delivering his dementia speech. I'll take a look at that later. First, I will post more quotes from his statement about the cash-for-access row.

This is what David Cameron had to say about cash-for-access.

What Peter Cruddas said was completely unacceptable and wrong ... We have a robust and sensible system for raising money in the Conservative party. All donations to the party centrally above £7,500 are declared to the Electoral Commission and must comply with electoral law. No donation is accepted before going through very thorough compliance procedures ... There has been much speculation about dinners in my flat in Number 10 Downing Street. The position is this; in the two years I have been prime minister there have been three occasions on which significant donors have come to my flat. In addition, there was a further post-election dinner which included donors in Downing Street itself shortly after the general election. We will be publishing full details of all these todays. None of these dinners were fundraising dinners. None of these dinners were paid for by the taxpayer. I have known most of those attending for many years. Let me add that Peter Cruddas has never recommended anyone to come to dinner in my flat, nor has he been to dinner there himself. I already publish details of my external meetings as prime minister - the first prime minister to do so - and I also publish all meetings that I have with media editors and proprietors. From now on the Conservative party will published details every quarter of any meals attended by any major donors, whether they take place at Downing Street, Chequers or any official residence. The Conservative party is funded by private citizens. I inherited a party that was tens of millions of pounds in debt and dependent on a tiny number of big donors. Since I have been leader we have significantly broadened the Conservative party's funding base and many more significant donors ... From now on, the Conservative party will in addition publish a register of those major donors who actually attend these fundraising dinners. On policy, let me make clear no one in the Number 10 policy unit has met anyone at Peter Cruddas's request. Peter Cruddas spoke about passing requests to a policy committee at Number 10 Downing Street. There is no such committee. However, to avoid any perception of undue influence, from now on we will put in place new procedures in which if any ministerial contact with a party donor prompts a request for policy advice, the minister wil refer this to his or her private office who can then seek guidance from the permanent secretary. Clearly there is still an urgent need for party funding reform in this country. I have consistently argued this over the last six years. No party is immune from these problems. Indeed, the leader of the Labour party has himself encountered some controversy in recent days. That is why the government has invited Labour to restart the cross-party talks on reforming the current rules. But today I make this offer once again to the Labour party. I'm ready to impose a cap on individual political donations of £50,000 without any further need for state funding. But to be fair this must apply equally to trade unions as well as to private citizens or businesses.

Cameron's speech is over. He is taking questions now, but he is taking questions about dementia, not cash-for-access, at the moment.

The Q&A is over. Cameron did not take any questions on cash-for-access.

Cameron is generally quite good in a crisis. With his back against the wall, he responds quickly - even if a blatant U-turn is required. Yesterday Downing street said Cameron would not be naming the Tory donors who have dined at Number 10. Today, without any qualms, Cameron is doing exactly that.

This certainly takes some of the sting out of the scandal, although it won't defuse it entirely. Now much will depend on what Labour can do to keep the controversy on the boil.

The Tories have now released the names of four donors who were entertained at the Number 10- flat.

They were: Michael Spencer; David Rowland; Ian Taylor and Henry Angest.



The BBC has more details.

Here's some Twitter reaction to the Cameron statement.

From the Labour party



Michael Fallon not doing a great job arguing Lord Gold's inquiry independent. Lord Gold is a Conservative peer investigating Tory Party

From the Tory Trade Union Reform Campaign



Ed Miliband needs to match Cameron by publishing register of all meetings, dinners and beer & sandwiches with union funders.



From Bloomberg's Rob Hutton

PM forgets to call press questions at Alzheimer's event.

Here is the full list of the people who attended the four Number 10 events mentioned by Cameron that Tory HQ have put out.

14 July 2010 – No 10

Attendees:

Anthony & Carole Bamford

Michael & Dorothy Hintze

Murdoch & Elsa Maclennan

Lord John & Lady Sainsbury

Andrew Feldman

Jill and Paul Ruddock

Mike and Jenny Farmer

Michael and Clara Freeman



28 February 2011 - flat

David Rowland and his wife. Andrew Feldman also attended.



2 November 2011 - flat

Attendees:

Henry and Dorothy Angest

Michael Farmer and wife

Ian Taylor and wife



27 February 2012 - flat

Michael Spencer and partner

The Tories are defining significant or major donors as anyone who gives more than £50,000 a year, ie members of the Leader's Group (see 10.32am).

UPDATE AT 1.25PM: Tory HQ says that not all the people on this list are major donors. The list features all the guests who attended the events where some attendees were major donors. I've amended the post above because it said they were all big donors.

Here is some more from Tory HQ on the four Number 10 events. (See 12.54pm.)

The first dinner, on 14 July 2010, was a post-election thank you dinner. It took place in the Number 10 rooms rather than in the Camerons' flat because the flat was being refurbished.

The second dinner, on 28 February 2011, was for David Rowland and his partner. A few months earlier Rowland was forced out of his post as Tory treasurer, and this dinner may have been Cameron's way of repairing relations with him.

The third dinner, on 2 November 2011, was a social dinner for strong supporters "with whom the PM has a strong relationship".

And the fourth, on 27 February 2012, was a social dinner for Michael Spencer and his partner.

Clarification: Not all those named on the list released by Tory HQ (see 12.54pm) are major donors. The list features all the guests who attended the events where some attendees were major donors.

Michael Fallon, the Conservative deputy chairman, told BBC News that David Cameron's decision to publish the names of major donors who have had dinner with him at Number 10 shows his commitment to transparency. I've taken the quote from PoliticsHome.



What's happening is that each time we are looking to see if we can make more information available to those who are calling for it. There's more transparency now. I think there has been quite a lot of public interest in this, and I think it's useful to actually clear the air because it shows, in fact, there were only three dinners involving donors in the last two years.

Here's a lunchtime summary.

• Labour has insisted that David Cameron's decision to publish the names of major donors that he has entertained at Number 10 does not obviate the need for a full inquiry into the cash-for-access affair. In a clear attempt to draw a line under the affair, Cameron published the names of significant donors who have had dinner with the prime minister at Number 10 since 2010, announced that Conservative peer Lord Gold will head the party's internal inquiry into what Peter Cruddas did and said that in future further details would be released about events with major donors. But Jack Straw, the Labour former foreign secretary, told the World at One this did not go far enough. According to PoliticsHome, he said a full inquiry was needed.

We will still need that independent inquiry that we've been calling for. The problem goes back to what Mr Cruddas was talking about, which is why you need an inquiry. Mr Cruddas was saying to people that if they paid £200,000 or £250,000, that you would get access to the highest reaches of this Government, access to the Downing St. policy apparatus. Mr Cruddas was also saying that they would give advice about how, essentially, to circumnavigate the very strict rules about overseas, foreign donations to political parties.

Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, will make a statement on party funding in the Commons at 3.30pm. Unusually, Ed Miliband will be responding for Labour. He is doing so because he thinks Cameron himself should be answering questions on this. (See 12.07pm and 12.54pm.)



• Cameron has promised to double funding for dementia research. He made the pledge in a speech in which he called for an "all-out fight back against dementia; one that cuts across society".



• Lord Newton of Braintree, the Tory former leader of the Commons, has died at the age of 74.

• A report has revealed that more than 20 men suspected of involvement in Islamic terrorism were sent into internal exile across the UK under the now-defunct system of "preventative" control orders.



• The Ministry of Defence has said that the Royal Military Police are to be removed from their role in probing allegations of torture and ill treatment by more than 100 Iraqis. As the Press Association reports, Nick Harvey, the armed forces minister, has announced that that role will now be carried out by the Royal Navy Police. The move follows a critical ruling by the Court of Appeal. Some 128 Iraqis complain that the UK Armed Forces were guilty of systemic abuse of detainees between March 2003 and December 2008 when they controlled the Basra area in southern Iraq. Three appeal judges said the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT) set up to investigate the allegations lacked "the requisite independence".

• The House of Commons Commission will decide tonight whether all MPs should be issued with iPads or other tablet computers.

Andrew Sharpe, a commercial lawyer at LexisPSL (a legal intelligence firm) has put out a statement suggesting that the cash-for-access controversy could involve offences under the Bribery Act. It sounds a bit spurious to me, but I suppose LexisPSL need publicity as much as the rest of us and you might find it interesting. Here's what he says:

There will be considerable interest in who has enjoyed the reported private dinners at No 10 not simply because this throws light on how funds are raised. It is at least arguable that any diners, who were also Conservative Party donors in order to get the dinner invitation, fall within the scope of Case 1 of the Bribery Act. Sections 1 and 2 of the Bribery Act 2010 set out a number of criminal offences for persons who bribe (labelled "P" in the Act) or persons who accept the bribe (labelled "R"). It does this by setting out a number of cases. The following cases may be of interest in connection with the so-called "Cash for Cameron" or "Cash for Access" controversy. In reports in the Sunday Times, it appears that a potential donor to the Conservative Party was offered access to the Prime Minister, including the opportunity to influence policy, for a donation of between £200,000 and £250,000. Would such a donor be a Bribery Act "P"? Could Peter Cruddas, and potentially David Cameron, be a Bribery Act "R"? Case 1 in the Bribery Act occurs when P offers, promises or gives a financial or other advantage to another person and intends that the advantage induces a person to perform improperly a relevant function or activity. 'Financial or other advantage' is not defined in the Act, but it can be assumed that a political donation would be an indirect form of 'other advantage' to be caught by the Act. In the context of the Sunday Times report into Peter Cruddas, if his pitch of a chance to influence policy was made to other potential donors, then it is possible that in subsequently making a donation, the donors thought they were going to influence something to be performed improperly. It would be for a court to determine in each case whether the "something" was a "relevant function or activity" under the Act or whether the donors would be mere lobbying. A 'relevant function or activity' includes a public function, where the person performing is expected to perform in good faith or impartially (section 3 Conditions A and B). As for the recipients, Case 3 in the Bribery Act creates a criminal offence where R requests, agrees to receive or accepts the financial or other advantage intending that a relevant function or activity should be performed improperly. As a mirror to Case 1, it is at least arguable that the Sunday Times report suggests that Peter Cruddas had the necessary intention, and so could fall within Case 3 if influencing a change in policy is determined by a court to be within the meaning of 'a relevant function or activity...performed improperly'. It is much more difficult to argue that the Prime Minister himself is caught by the Bribery Act, but not impossible. Case 5 creates a criminal offence where R requests, agrees to receive or accepts a financial or other advantage as a reward for improper performance. It does not matter if the advantage is for another person (e.g. a political party donation and not a direct payment) or whether the request etc is made through a third party. So, all the elements are arguably present for Case 5 and David Cameron, other than the vital one of improper performance. Again, this will be one reason by opponents of the Prime Minister will be seeking past dinner attendance lists; they will be looking for any change in Government policy or behaviour as a result of attendance. If there is, then a case could be made to suggest Case 5 subsists. This is all new territory, as there have been very few prosecutions under the Bribery Act to test it.

Here's a short cash-for-access reading list.



• James Kirkup at the Telegraph says David Cameron has not done enought to quell the cash-for-access controversy.



• Paul Goodman at ConservativeHome says that if Tory donors think they are buying influence, they are misguided.

• Gary Gibbon on his Channel 4 blog says that David Cameron's dinners look not so much like "dinners for friends that happened to include donors" and more like "dinners for donors who've given a big sum".



• Peter Watt at Labour Uncut says the committee on standards in public life's plans for a cap on donations to political parties are sensible and workable.

• Guido Fawkes on his blog says David Cameron personally told Sir Jeremy Bamford how to make a donation to the Conservatives.

Why hasn't David Cameron published a list of major Tory donors who have been entertained at Chequers? Because it would take too long and the list would not necessarily be accurate, Tory sources are saying. They claim that people who visit Chequers on official businesses have their names recorded. But there is no register of all those who have visited in a personal or a party capacity. Major donors have been entertained there, they say, but there is no quick way of compiling a list.

In future a register will be published listing major donors who have been entertained at Number 10, Chequers or at any other official residence. But that list won't be retrospective.

Francis Maude will be making his party funding statement shortly.

Ed Miliband is responding for Labour.

Francis Maude says party funding needs to be reformed. Labour MPs jeers.

The last attempt to reform party funded started with all talks in 2006. The expectation was that there would be an increase in state funding, provided there was a cap on donations.

Those talks came "agonisingly close" to reaching a conclusion. But they did not.

The coalition agreement commits the government to pursuing an agreement on limiting funding, Maude says.

As Labour MPs continue to interrupt, Maude says Labour's role in this saga is a "shameful one".

He says the government welcomed the committee on standards in public life plans. But, at a time of austerity, it could not see a case for more state funding.

Instead Nick Clegg invited all the parties to nominate people to attend a new round of cross-party talks. Maude and Lord Feldman will lead for the Conservatives.

Maude says much of what Peter Cruddas said was untrue.

Electoral law has to be complied with.

This government has gone "much further" than any previous government in revealing details of meetings with outsiders.

David Cameron has said today he will go further.

Maude says he hopes Ed Miliband will explain what he will do.

Returning to party funding, Maude says:

There is a way of solving this problem.

They need to look at donations, and how to limit them. Cameron has said there could be a cap, but only provided it applies to all donations (ie, union ones).

The challenge is to make this process work, he says.

Maude had nothing new to say in his statement. It is rare to hear a Commons oral statement so devoid of content.

Ed Miliband says Cameron should be making this statement himself. He is not here becuse "he has got something to hide".

This controversy is about Cameron's chief fund-raiser seeking cash for access.

And it is about seeking cash for policy, he says. He quotes from what Peter Cruddas told the undercover reporters.

They are about the breaking down of the lines between support for a party and influencing policy.

Does Maude accept that it is unacceptable to have an inquiry by the Conservative party. It is an inquiry into the Conservative party, by the Conservative party, for the Conservative party. It is a "whitewash".

Sir Alex Allan, the independent adviser on ministerial interests, should conduct the inquiry, Miliband says.

He says the inquiry should look into whether donors have influenced policy.

Miliband says Downing Street suggested yesterday that the donors Cameron met were old friends.

But the list published today disproves that, he says.

Some 12 donors gave £18m. They were in the Champions League, he jokes. Miliband says he bets they did well out of the budget.

Miliband is still talking.

He says only Cameron would think that a donation worth £49,000 - double the average way - was not significant.

Cameron asked Miliband to nominate people to attend cross-party talks some time ago. Miliband replied. Then, for five weeks, he heard nothing.

Miliband says Lord Feldman, one of the Tories who will attend the cross-party talks, sabotaged the Kelly reforms. He wrote to Kelly's committee was to say the Conservatives would not accept a £10,000 cap on donations.

Miliband says only an independent inquiry will do.

Maude is replying to Miliband.

He says Labour did not reform party funding when they were in office.

Peter Watt, the former Labour general secretary, said that Labour were the party who blocked the Christopher Kelly reforms.

Maude says Labour did not have an independent inquiry into the David Abrahams affairs. Instead it asked Lord Whitty, a former Labour general secretary, to head the inquiry.

In the Labour party, donors actually elect the leader, he says.

John Bercow intervenes because the chamber is so noisy. Bercow asks for quiet, and says Maude should be speaking about government policy, not about the opposition.

Maude goes on. When Ed Miliband pulled "a sickie" and did not attend an NHS rally, he went on to meet a Labour donor.

Maude says that when he was Conservative chairman he met Andrew Rosenfeld, the controversial tycoon who has joined Labour as a fundraiser. Maude says the Tories did not take Rosenfeld's money.

Labour's Jack Straw asks Maude to confirm that Labour did reform the party funding rules. He asks what would be wrong about having Sir Alex Allan investigate the cash-for-access affair. And he asks Maude to confirm that the Tories walked away from a deal on party funding in 2007.

Maude says this affair is not about ministerial propriety (ie, a matter for Allan). It is a matter of party funding. If it was acceptable for Labour to hold an internal inquiry into the David Abrahams affair, it should be acceptable for the Conservatives to hold their own inquiry.

Maude says Labour operated "behind closed doors". The Tories have "let the sunlight in".

Labour's Gisela Stuart asks if it is official Tory policy to lie to donors. Maude says Peter Cruddas is no longer co-treasurer.

Sir Gerald Kaufman, a Labour MP, says the standards and privileges committee criticised David Cameron before the election for using his office in the Commons to meet donors. He accuses the government of being "corrupt".

Maude says he used to respect Kaufman, but cannot now.

Maude says if there is any suggestion of illegality, it will be investigated. But this prime minister has not been interviewed by the police, unlike Tony Blair.

Peter Bone, a Conservative, asks Maude to confirm that there will be no extra state funding for political parties. Maude says Clegg has said that that would not be acceptable in the current climate.

Labour's Stella Creasy asks if any donors have made representations to the government about their opposition to a cap on charges for payday lenders.

Maude says he is not aware of any representations of this kind.

Labour's Dennis Skinner asks why Cameron is not here. Is it because he was not offered enough money to attend? Cameron has been surrounded by sleaze ever since he walked through the door of Number 10, he says. He says the police should investigate.

Maude says being in the pockets of the trade unions "is no way for a grown-up party to behave".

Kris Hopkins, a Conservative, asks if any review of party funding will stop donors influencing the choice of party candidates.

Maude says he does not expect Labour to support that.

Robert Halfon, a Conservative, asks if the government will publish a list of all the Labour donors who were entertained at Number 10 when Labour were in power.

Maude says that if Gordon Brown ever graces the House of Commons with his presence, he will take this up with him.

Margot James, a Conservative, asks Maude to confirm that there is no "policy committee" at Number 10.

(Peter Cruddas talked about the "policy committee" at Number 10. He clearly meant the policy unit.)

Maude says these allegations display an ignorance of how policy making actually works in a coalition. There would be no point just influencing the Tories, he says, because any policy decisions also have to be agreed by the Lib Dems.

Labour's Luciana Berger asks Maude how Peter Cruddas knew that the 50p top rate of tax was going to be abolished.

Maude says that he does not think Cruddas knew any more than anyone else who had read the papers.

Maude suggests Peter Cruddas was explicitly told not to offer donors the prospect of being able to influence policy.

Kwasi Kwarteng, a Conservative, asks Maude if Labour have given any indication that they would accept a cap on union donations.

Maude says union members pay an affiliation fee. But it is hard for them to find information about it, it is hard for them to opt and and, even if they do opt out, they do not save any money, he says.

Maude says the Conservative party's treasurer's department did not know about the meeting Peter Cruddas was having with the potential donors who turned out to be undercover reporters.

Aidan Burley, a Conservative, asks if Maude thinks it is acceptable for Labour politicians to meet union donors in the Commons. John Bercow refuses to let Maude answer, saying that issue is not a matter for him.

Maude says previous prime ministers have refused to publish details of their meetings with donors.

Labour's Chris Bryant says David Cameron will be able to avoid questions in the Commons about his unfair budget for four weeks (because the Easter recess starts on Tuesday, meaning there will be no PMQs this week). How did the government become so corrupt so quickly, he asks.

Only an hour ago Tory sources were saying that they were not going to publish the names of major party donors entertained at Chequers. (See 3.25pm.) Now, according to the Daily Mail's Tim Shipman, another U-turn is on its way.

Reality appears to biting in Downing Street. A Chequers list is being drawn up but is unlikely to be ready this evening

Maude says that the Warwick agreement, the deal struck between Labour and the unions before the 2010 election, was a straightforward cash-for-policy exchange.

Alec Shelbrooke, a Conservative, says he used to be a member of Unite. He found it remarkably difficult to opt out of the political levy, he says.

Maude says even if union members can opt out of the levy, they do not save any money.

Stephen Williams, a Lib Dem MP, says the government should implement the committee on standards in public life's recommentations in full. Sir Christopher Kelly, the chairman, said politicians should not "cherry pick" from his report, Williams says.

Thérèse Coffey, a Conservative, asks if Maude agrees that Ed Miliband should publish the list of business people who attended a meal for him hosted by Roland Rudd. (Guido Fawkes has been challenging Miliband to publish these names, as Miliband said he would at a press conference.)

Maude says Miliband will have to heard the point.

Labour's David Anderson asks if Peter Cruddas did urge David Cameron to oppose the Tobin tax, as he said he did in his comments to the Sunday Times undercover reporters.

Maude says many people in the City are opposed to the Tobin tax. It would not be suprising if Cruddas thought so too.

In response to another question from Labour, Maude says repeats his point about the Warwick agreement. And he says it was Sadiq Khan, the shadow justice secretary, who recently allowed the GMB to influence the way Labour were voting on a particular measure.

Labour's Ian Lucas asks if David Cameron discussed policy with Tory donors in his Number 10 flat.

Maude says this is the first government to disclose the meetings the prime minister has held with party donors.

The session is over. John Bercow says he took 77 questions from backbenchers.

On a point of order Sir Gerald Kaufman says David Cameron should have made the statement in the Commons himself. John Bercow says he believes important statements should be made in the Commons. And he says how much he enjoys listening to Kaufman's speeches, in a move that sounds like a deliberate attempt to disassociate himself from Maude's put-down to Kaufman. (See 4.01pm.)

Francis Maude said he hoped there would be a cross-party agreement on party funding. But, after listening to that ill-tempered Commons marathon, it's hard to believe that there's much chance of one being achieved. The gulf between the Tories and Labour seems as wide as ever. Newsnight's Allegra Stratton has been hitting the phones and, on Twitter, she says he has come to the same conclusion.

Phone calls suggest consensus slim. Libs want way less than Cam's 50k cap; unions block DMili's 'opt in'; state funding a dead duck

What was also interesting about the statement was how Labour tried to frame this as a scandal about buying influence. With Cameron now publishing the names of the donors he has entertained, this is an obvious direction in which to shove the story. But Ed Miliband and his colleagues do not have any fresh evidence to suggest donors are writing policy and Francis Maude's point about influencing policy being much harder in a coalition, because you have to square the Lib Dems too, was a good one.

Here's an afternoon summary.

• Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, has renewed his call for a full independent inquiry into the cash-for-access affair and condemned the internal Conservative party probe ordered by David Cameron as "a whitewash". In response to a Commons statement from Francis Maude, Miliband said the affair could stain the reputation of the government.



We are happy to have proper talks about funding. But it is ridiculous for the government to seek to use them as a smokescreen. The problem with these people, as we saw with last week's Budget, is that they think they can get away with anything. And they've been found out. Mr Speaker, the weekend's revelations show this government cannot deliver the change we need. They promised transparency, they promised to clean up politics. Now they won't even agree to a proper inquiry. And the prime minister is too ashamed to come to this House and explain. This scandal speaks to the conduct and character of this Prime Minister and his government. Anything short of an independent inquiry will leave a permanent stain on the reputation of this government and this prime minister.

Labour's Sir Gerald Kaufman went further, descrbing the government as "corrupt". But Labour were not able to produce any fresh evidence to use against the government and Maude hit back with an aggressive attack on Labour's relationship with the union. Tory HQ followed up by releasing a document saying that members of the shadow cabinet have received more than £18,000 to fund their constituency campaigns, and that in return they have proposed amendments to bills worth £23bn.



• Tory HQ have now released a list of major donors entertained at Chequers. Here is the document. It covers private lunches and dinners at Chequers that major donors have attended. They were not funded by the taxpayer. Details of official, publicly-funded events at Chequers, including ones attended by people who have donated to the Conservative party, are already published by the government on an annual basis and are not included here.



8 August 2010 - lunch - David Rowland and his wife 7 November 2010 - lunch - Fares Fares and his wife In addition, the following current or former Conservative Party Treasurers have had lunch or dinner at Chequers. 31 May 2010 - lunch - Michael Spencer and his partner 6 June 2010 - lunch - Lord Ashcroft and his wife 6 February 2011 - lunch - Howard Leigh and his wife As Party chairman Lord Feldman has visited Chequers on several occasions. On 15 October 2011, Chequers was used to host a charity fundraiser in aid of Mencap and 3 smaller charities in aid of disabled children. This was attended by a large number of people, including donors to both the Labour party and the Conservative party. This list of names is based on records held by Chequers. It is complete to the best of our knowledge.

The Tories say no party fundraising events have been held at Chequers. Nor have there been any lunches or dinners exclusively for Conservative party donors.

• Tanker drivers from the Unite union have voted for strike action in a dispute over terms and conditions and safety standards.

• Ken Livingstone has been responding to questions from Guardian readers in a live Q&A.



• Boris Johnson has published his transport manifesto.

That's it for today. Thanks for the comments.