When the Parliamentary Standards Bill was introduced, it contained a clause stating parliamentary privilege did not prevent evidence being admissible.
With his poll lead slipping, his team’s competence questioned and his policies under attack, David Cameron today stands accused of “breathtaking” hypocrisy over his comments on the expenses scandal. In a speech on rebuilding trust in politics the Conservative party lead sought to portray himself as “the change Britain desperately needs”, criticising Gordon Brown for being a “roadblock to political reform”.
His record since the scandal broke, however, belies such rhetoric, Left Foot Forward can reveal.
When the Parliamentary Standards Bill was introduced in the Commons on June 23rd, it contained a clause stating parliamentary privilege did not prevent evidence being admissible in proceedings against an MP for an offence in the Bill – a clause deleted after opposition from the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
Speaking in the debate, then Shadow Leader of the House Alan Duncan had said:
“We still have concerns about clause 10, which creates a formal provision to allow proceedings to be admissible in court proceedings against an MP, regardless of parliamentary privilege…
“Inasmuch as IPSA has power over our allowances, we are largely content, but inasmuch as it muddies the water and empowers the courts to intrude on our independence of action, it must be resisted.
“Even more dangerously, as the Clerk goes on to suggest, the casual disregard for parliamentary privilege in the Bill, particularly in clause 10, could cause permanent damage to parliamentary proceedings.”
Justice Secretary Jack Straw told Left Foot Forward:
“David Cameron’s position this morning is breathtaking for its sheer hypocrisy. Just a few months ago the Conservative Party were actively sabotaging all efforts to exclude the ambit of parliamentary privilege from the new laws on MPs expenses.
“Now Mr Cameron’s lust for an easy headline has provoked yet another bout of rank opportunism. The British public will see right through it.”
David Cameron and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg are among those who voted against the proposals on reforming parliamentary privilege.
Concerns have also been raised as to whether Mr Cameron’s outspoken remarks will prejudice any future trial against the three MPs – Jim Devine, David Chaytor and Elliot Morley – and Tory peer Lord Hanningfield, all of whom have been charged with theft by false accounting, with Labour Deputy Leader Harriet Harman warning him:
“He’s got to be very careful what he says or his comments might actually jeopardise the trial and nobody wants to see that happen.”
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
34 Responses to “Hypocritical Cameron voted against proposals to reform parliamentary privilege”
Mark Pack
I think you’re missing what was wrong with parts of the Bill which Cameron and others (including the Lib Dems) opposed: it was a rush job, badly drafted with wide but barely debated implications and with Parliament’s Privilege Committee warning about the impact of what it proposed.
Opposing a botched rush job was the right thing to do – even if one of the people doing it was David Cameron 🙂
Tim J
“I’d have thought Cameron’s comments in particular come very close to being in contempt.”
What? Do you have the slightest idea of what contempt of court is? A court has not been convened yet, a trial has not been arranged, there *is no court* for Cameron to be in contempt of. Yassus.
In any event, nothing that Cameron (or indeed Alan Johnson or ‘Downing Street’, both of whom have said effectively the same thing – that ‘privilege’ should not be used as a defence here) has said could possibly be construed as contempt.
Is this the legendary ‘evidence based blogging’ of which I have heard so much?
Shamik Das
I’m sorry but you’re wrong. Proceedings are active once an individual is charged. Any prejudicial reporting from that point on can be held in contempt.
I suggest you read this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/thelaw/contempt.shtml
And then this: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1981/cukpga_19810049_en_1#pb3-l1g14
Donald Hedges
I think its all a complete nightmare anyway. They had a chance to prosecute errant MPs with Clause 10 of the Parliamentary Standards Bill, a golden opportunity if there was one and chose not to do so, deliberately not altering Article IX of the Bill of Rights Act. So they are now all hoist with their own petard.
As to contempt of court, well we’ve all committed that by endlessly discussing it. Its very doubtful whether this thing will now ever come to trial.
Henry
All this sounds like Cameron putting up a smokescreen in advance of the electoral reform vote – which the Tories are getting hysterical about.