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.”
34 Responses to “Hypocritical Cameron voted against proposals to reform parliamentary privilege”
Shamik Das
Mark,
I’ve given no opinion on the privilege defence, nor on the participants’ innocene or guilt, either way. In terms of what Cameron said about withdrawing it as a defence, at this time, I cannot see how that would be fair – surely the applicability of privilege, as Keir Starmer clearly said, is up to the Courts, not a power-hungry politician, to decide.
There is also an argument to suggest that those involved should not face retrospective justice, and should be tried and be able to defend themselves under the laws that existed at the time.
Mark
Tom, I’m aware of the legal nature of “privilege”, thanks. As we’ve seen in the Trafigura case, it’s very useful in the right instances. That’s why I said it was a subtle issue and not really good point-scoring.
Shamik: Shape your words carefully but surely something smells wrong when Labour MPs claim “privilege” as their defence? Now it’s not for a politician to decide their fare but surely the matter of expenses cannot morally stretch to expenses? Labour are in danger of gifting Cameron an open goal here, the way the three weren’t suspended until Cameron called for it is only going to make Labour look like ditherers. Someone needs to get a grip and if the Party can’t make up its mind, bloggers should not be embarrassed to point out that parliamentary privilege is for more noble means than ducking expense claims.
Tom
Mark: My apologies. I thought from your reference to this being a progressive blog that you were condemning privilege in general. Which I’d be very happy to join you in doing, outside the legal sphere.
David
Dave, it's time you got your policies sorted out. http://is.gd/7WvGG
notlob2008
RT @LukePollard: Read this – RT @Juderobinson: Last year Cameron voted not to reform parl privilege. Now he accuses GB of blocking it http://bit.ly/bFwSbe