A LEADING lawyer has questioned why the Metropolitan Police would not look in more detail at the SNP’s complaint about a “cash for honours” culture at the heart of the Tory party.
The SNP’s Pete Wishart wrote to the London Met on Monday November 8 asking them to investigate after it was revealed that 15 of the past 16 Conservative party treasurers had donated more than £3 million each to the party - and then been handed a peerage.
A former party chairman reportedly explained: “Once you pay your £3m, you get your peerage.”
The most controversial appointment was that of Peter Cruddas (below), who was given a title after Boris Johnson rejected the advice of the House of Lords Appointment Commission not to grant him a seat in the upper chamber.
Wishart said the scandal was corruption – “plain and simple”.
He went on: “It's now beyond all doubt that the honours system has been abused by the Tories. The Metropolitan Police should launch a fresh cash for honours investigation to determine whether a criminal offence has been committed.”
However, on Friday the Met responded to Wishart, saying that there was “insufficient information upon which to launch a criminal investigation”.
They added that "should further information regarding these matters be provided to the Metropolitan Police this will of course be considered".
Now, Jolyon Maugham, a barrister and director of Good Law Project, has questioned why the police would not take a deeper look.
Writing on Twitter, he said the force’s dismissal seemed “to misunderstand the Met's role”.
He went on: “It's not @PeteWishart's job to gather the evidence. He doesn't have power to compel the production of documents and interview witnesses. That's the Met's job.
“So why won't they look?”
READ MORE: Handing top Ofcom job to Boris Johnson's favourite 'may be unlawful', Tories told
Maugham said it was “hard to think” how someone might hear of the news of Tory donations and peerages “and think to yourself 'nah, nothing here to investigate'. Surely, you'd at least take a look”.
“Once again, we are left wondering whether political interference with policing means the Tories are above the law,” he went on.
“It's just like PPE procurement. Everyone knows - with huge payments to politically connected middlemen - there is at least a whiff of out-and-out corruption. And yet the police are nowhere to be seen.”
Responding to Maugham’s comments, Wishart wrote: “Yup. 4 days and barely 100 words and it’s dismissed. No curiosity, ‘nothing to see here’ and ‘go and investigate it yourself’.
“Almost like a green light for Tories with a hankering for ermine with a few million to spare.”
Yup. 4 days and barely 100 words and it’s dismissed. No curiosity, ‘nothing to see here’ and ‘go and investigate it yourself’. Almost like a green light for Tories with a hankering for ermine with a few million to spare. https://t.co/23adtpwTPH
— Pete Wishart (@PeteWishart) November 13, 2021
Tony Blair’s former chief spin doctor, Alastair Campbell, added that it should “now be asked on what basis/information they launched an investigation into Labour under [Blair]? There was even less ‘information', just a claim by an MP?”
The Met investigated a “cash for honours” scandal in 2006/7 when they received three complaints against Blair’s government. It was alleged that peerages were being offered in a trade for loans to the then ruling Labour party.
In July 2007, they concluded that no charges would be brought.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel