Morning:
8°c
Speaker John Bercow warns MPs not to interfere with expenses battle
Nicholas Cecil and Paul Waugh8 Feb 2010
Commons Speaker John Bercow today warned senior MPs not to jeopardise a trial of three backbench MPs charged over their expenses.
He spoke out amid concerns that the public debate over whether the trio should be allowed to use parliamentary privilege as a defence could in fact be used by lawyers to argue that the men could not get a fair trial.
In a statement to the Commons, Mr Bercow said: “The House and members would not wish to interfere with the judicial process, risking affecting the fairness of a criminal trial, or furthermore preventing such a trial taking place.”
Eyebrows have been particularly raised over Home Secretary Alan Johnson's comments at the weekend.
Asked about the three MPs, he told the BBC: “They are entitled to a fair trial and the public... would be aghast if they thought there was some special get out of jail card for Parliamentarians.”
David Cameron also waded into the row today, saying it was a “crazy notion” that parliamentary privilege could protect MPs found to have wrongly claimed expenses.
The Tory leader also accused the Prime Minister of “dithering” over the issue of expenses.
In a major victory for David Cameron, the Prime Minister caved in to demands from the Tory leader to withdraw the party whip from backbenchers Elliot Morley, David Chaytor and Jim Devine.
The three men and Tory peer Lord Hanningfield, are facing up to seven years in jail after they were charged with false accounting in relation to their expenses last week.
The three Labour MPs were accused under theft laws of illegally claiming almost £60,000 of taxpayers' money. Labour's general secretary Ray Collins today suspended the three MPs “in light of the serious allegations against them”.
They had already been barred from standing for Parliament as Labour candidates. Deputy leader Harriet Harman confirmed: “If they are found guilty, they will be expelled from the Labour Party.” But the decision to “administratively suspend” the trio, pending the prosecution against them, came minutes before Mr Cameron lambasted Mr Brown for his handling of the scandal.
In his most personal attack on the Prime Minister to date, Mr Cameron blamed Mr Brown for the culture of “cronyism” that had blocked reform of the allowances system.
Until Labour's last-minute decision, the Tory leader was due to say the failure to withdraw the whip showed Mr Brown “tolerates the disgusting sight” of his MPs trying to use Parliamentary privilege to “save their skins”.
Mr Cameron was scathing about the premier's failure to reform MPs' expenses in 2008. “The character of his government — secretive, power-hoarding, controlling — is his character,” he said.
He declared that a Tory government would drastically curb Britain's £2 billion-a-year political lobbying industry and cut the chances of ministers making a quick buck in the private sector.
Current rules, which allow ministers to take a job with big business a year after their resignation, would be changed to increase the “quarantine” period to two years.
Mr Cameron described lobbying as “the next big scandal waiting to happen”. “It's an issue that has tainted our politics for too long,” he said.
Corporate lobbying underlined why public trust in Parliament was so low, “with money buying power, power fishing for money and a cosy club at the top making decisions in their own interest,” he said.
He warned that if Labour won the election there would be “five more years of Gordon Brown blocking reform, five more years of more money buying more influence, whether it's money from big business or money from big unions”.
Seizing on Mr Brown's confirmation that Tony Blair would be brought back for the election campaign, Mr Cameron said he wanted a “new political culture ... to bury the whole rotten mess of [Peter] Mandelson, [Alastair] Campbell, Blair and Brown”.
Reader views (37)
Wavy Davy Cameron, heir to Blair, will be Blair Mark II. Fine words are cheap and easy, just look at Boris. The Lords and commons are equally tainted. The whole system is out-of-date but the pomp, ceremony and only 139 days of "stting" in the house. Who else can milk the system - from yesterday's Standard, local council CEO's can. The bully Big Brother club has grown to almost 2 million in local councils. How many of those non-jobs could be axed immediately? Are MPs, civil servants, and the rest of the millions on over-generous pension packages the biggest benefit cheats of all? No sign of Cameron tackling the thiefdoms that local councils have become or of restoring the 10% tax rate, or preventing councils making people bankrupt if they cannot afford to pay council tax. No party leader measures up to setting us free from the dictatorship England has become.
- Rita, London, 02/03/2010 10:44
Report abuse
Bercow's point is actually valid: politicians are used to inveighing against each other in public, but as these MPs/Peer are now facing prosecution, parliamentarians should shut up about the case - even about whether parliamentary privilege should be invoked or not. For the cases are now in the legal domain, and sub judice, and all proceedings regarding them are a matter of court privilege. They should not be made the subject of public comment at all, otherwise, as Bercow says, the trial could collapse as a result. The Home Secretary should be particularly careful, as he rules the police and the prison system. Judges are notoriously touchy about politicians commenting on trials.
- Johnant, London, 12/02/2010 01:59
Report abuse
Archer Aitken Hamilton fine upstabding Tories none of whom were found guilty of corruption. It illbehoves any Tory politician to claim the moral high ground. As yet no one has been jailed and no one has been found guilty.
The biased Tory press may be having a field day with this one but the convebiently forgot the last Tory government and why it got blown out of sight. The fact that Brown has allowed his party to get tarnished withthe same brush points to how not in control the control freak really is.
- Duncan, Kent, 09/02/2010 14:26
Report abuse
All that these Corrupt politicians want to do is fill your minds with so much unimportant crap that you forget the REAL MAIN issue here at the ELECTIONS and that is that none of the LIB/LAB/CON consortium are against our absorbtion and rule by Europe.
A vote for any of the main parties, Labour, Conservatives or Lib Dems, will mean, to them, a 'YES' vote for our unwanted, continued handover to European domination and an end to our Independence and freedom.
Our only, other, option is to support one of the Pro Britain Parties and give some one New a chance to rebuild Britain, Internally and Internationally, invoke Our National Pride and make Britain a world Power again, Free, self governing and Independent, building Britain's respect World Wide.
Focus on the Real Issue here, this Election is our Freedom Referendum, make no error.
- Conservationchris, Knutsford ENGLAND, 08/02/2010 22:44
Report abuse
Nu, london uk - it is NOT a little thing when the people who can vote themselves anything they want abuse that trust (and I include all parties here). That the system was exploitable does not make it excusable that people consciously chose to exploit it (that's like accusing a purse snatcher's victim of not having a snatch-proof handbag and therefore making a fuss over nothing). These people are supposed to be intelligent, so "didn't realise" just doesn't cut it!
What has been lost other than a "paltry million or so?" - public confidence in the people who aspire to lead and make viable their nation. That is no small thing.
...oh, and for those endlessly accusing Maggie Thatcher of responsibility for anything and everything that's wrong today. How long is it since she was in power? How much opportunity has there been, with her political opposites in power I remind you, for her "dastardly deeds" to have been reversed? How much longer before you stop searching for excuses in the distant past for the choices and failings of TODAY'S politicians after a decade with three consecutive elections that brought in the socialists?
- Rogan, Irving, 08/02/2010 18:50
Report abuse
I don't think Mr Speaker was alluding to the Home Secretary when he made his stern warning this afternoon. I watched Alan Jphnson on Andrew Marr yesterrday, and he said nothing that would influence the case one way or the othe; why would he, he is the Home Secretary after all and would have taken advice before he appeared on the programme. In the case of David Cameron, however, he has been shooting off his mouth as usual without a thought for the repercussions. Let's all hope his loose lipped comments don't have an effect he didn't intend. He never learns, does he.
- Val Daniels, Mijas Costa, Spain, 08/02/2010 17:58
Report abuse
Frank
"Actually Cameron has never defended his own and has always said that money should be paid back as appropriate."
Appropriate appears to be the operative word. Who decides what is appropriate, oh the rules relating to expenses. These were the rules in place at the time of the scandal surrounding expenses, Parliamentary Privilege rules are and remain in place.
Why should Cameron decide to change one set of rules and not the another for political convenience.
Unfortunately that is the postion whether it is palatable or not Frank
- Gavin, London, 08/02/2010 17:30
Report abuse
Good speech from D.C. Now will we get some policies on Immigration and tackling return of somew powers from the EU?
- Anne, Leyburn. England., 08/02/2010 17:18
Report abuse
The depths to which Cameron will sink! He's making the campaign personal.
- Dhan Raj, Basildon, 08/02/2010 17:16
Report abuse
I hope that’s loud & clear Cameron, butt out! Stop scoring points risking the fairness of a criminal trial and let the judicial process do its work that you keep bleating on about.
- Jack, London, 08/02/2010 16:54
Report abuse
@ Gavin, London
Actually Cameron has never defended his own and has always said that money should be paid back as appropriate.
Please note it's 3 Labour to 1 Tory being charged, perhaps you might like to justify your own thieving socialists before attacking the Torys?
However, the argument of the moment is that if they get away with using parliamentary privilege as a get out of jail card, then they will not face the courts at all, let alone have to worry about a fair trial.
- Frank, Home Counties, England., 08/02/2010 16:30
Report abuse
There is more than an element of hypocrisy at work with Cameron.
He defends his own, and his fellow front oppostion benchers, actions as being within the exisitng rules, rules which we know have been stretched to the limit, and in many cases exceeded, and then criticises the rules relating to exisitng parliamentary privilege rules.
- Gavin, London, 08/02/2010 15:04
Report abuse
Victory, what victory? Labour is a democratic party. We have procedures that ensure fairness to all members, be they miscreant MPs or the unemployed. Unlike the 'we did it first'Conservative party, we do not rush to instant judgement after a press conference by the DPP. This decision was taken following a meeting of the NEC at the weekend, and was announced this morning. Nothing to do with David Cameron although, as is his wont, he will claim the credit. I am surprised that Paul Waugh, experienced as he is in the procedures of all political parties, is endorsing this claim.
- Val Daniels, Mijas Costa, Spain, 08/02/2010 13:52
Report abuse
Can we remind ourselves as to who created the Expenses system now in place: Margaret Thatcher.
And as for getting jobs after leaving office, I think David should look at his own front bench for the number of "second" jobs they already have.
- Justin, London, England, 08/02/2010 13:40
Report abuse
How dare they make the MPs face criminal charges!
- Scotty, London, 08/02/2010 13:39
Report abuse
If David Cameron was really serious about the whole expense scandal, he would have taken action against his own Front Benchers who have abused the system.
- Carl, London, 08/02/2010 13:17
Report abuse
why did Brown even resist?
this was a massive own goal, that just allowed Cameron to walk in and score.
- Scotty, London, 08/02/2010 12:50
Report abuse
Val - If you were charged with a crime which you are alleged to have committed during the course of your employment it is common practice for you to be suspended on full pay until the outcome of those proceedings. Brown has chosen not to do that and it just shows that the man has no back bone at all. Once again he has gone walkabout and is leading from the rear. Brown has baulked at every opportunity to bring in change to clean up parliament. The man`s a disgrace. He left it to Harriet this morning to break cover and for her to try and suppress comment on the case of these 3, whose defence is being run on the contents of a 17th century Bill Of Rights.
- Brian G, Norfolk Gorleston, 08/02/2010 12:37
Report abuse
Why does it take intervention from Cameron to get Brown to act? Is anyone else starting to feel like the wrong guy is in Number 10?
- Londoner, London, 08/02/2010 12:36
Report abuse
Seems many readers to this paper/web site are forgetting the point. In Blairs day they decided not to give pay rises to MPs, point one. Point 2 the MPs made their shortfall up (with the original blessing of TB & GB) with expenses... and then the rules were changed and ALL were caught out.
Talk about shooting themselves in the foot!!!
- Tony, Herts, 08/02/2010 12:17
Report abuse
What is it with this guy? David Cameron once again jumps on another Banner headline!
The Tories were better than this and lord they had their share of troubles, but at least you knew their policies & beliefs. This man bends so much for votes, just wonder how far he will go.
As no party can come out of this clean, it’s not an area to score points on. There already Parliamentary rules it just need to be enforced and have people to actually doing their job by enforcing them! Instead he looks at his decreasing poll margin and decides it’s easier to have another law just because it would make me look good for the voters.
Oh I wish this man had a true agenda to make us actually vote for some with conviction, not a man of just Headlines.
- Jack, London, 08/02/2010 11:58
Report abuse
Why are the three MPs being charged with "false accounting" and not Theft and Misconduct in a public office? If you or I had fraudulently claimed £20k in social security benefits, we would almost certainly be facing a significant prison sentence. I fail to see that there is a fundamental difference in stealing £20k of social security benefits and stealing £20k of expenses from the taxpayer.
- Ross, London, UK, 08/02/2010 11:36
Report abuse
i don't understand all of this hot air over what amounts to a million quid between several hundred politicians. It's not a lot of money when you compare it with, say, the BAE scandal, the banking 'crisis'.
On the whole the MPs did not behave in a manner that would not be considered outrageous by most of your readership if it was in the work place and that includes people who work for the public sector.
The rules were not clear, so they got exploited. So perhaps this is an issue that doesn't deserve the leader of the opposition's attention and I have to say, if the ratio of MPs to be prosecuted were 3 conservatives to one Labour, I can't help wondering if Mr Cameron would mention it at all. So it's not news, it's just point scoring.
Politics isn't a game and when politicians start behaving like they are playing one, they should be ignored not promoted to the front page. This just isn't front page worthy, there are plenty of other things going on in this city that need to be on the front page, plenty more things going on in the country, in the world.
- Nu, london uk, 08/02/2010 11:17
Report abuse
If the test was simply greed, I wonder how load his calls for prosecution would be?
- Gavin, London, 08/02/2010 11:16
Report abuse
These three MPs were banned from standing as MPs again when their expenses fiddles were first exposed so, yet again, Bandwagon Cameron is behind the game. The government have already said the Labour party is not funding their legal advice.
- Val Daniels, Mijas Costa, Spain, 08/02/2010 11:15
Report abuse
Great but many MPs got away with it due to semantics.
- Steven, London, 08/02/2010 10:45
Report abuse
Cameron has appeared more decisive than Brown in handling the expenses outrage, but there have been some apparent inconsistencies in the treatment of Tory MPs.
The Opposition leader would be well advised to exercise caution in using expenses as a party-political weapon. Neither of the two major parties emrge from this debacle with any credit, and Cameron has a huge credibility deficit.
With weeks to go to the election, and a totally dicredited incumbent administration, Cameron should be a shoo in as next PM, but he is merely the bookies favourite.
He talks the talk eloquently, but many have yet to be convinced of his ability or willingness to walk the walk. Blair Mk II ?
- John C, Leatherhead, UK, 08/02/2010 10:45
Report abuse
I think David, your main problem at the next election, is to get the likes of me who has NEVER missed voting at General & Council elections for the last fifty seven years in my case, to go out and vote, I feel you are all tarred with the same brush.
- Shallotman, Basildon, 08/02/2010 10:40
Report abuse
Choose one slightly more convincing liar over another one ?
What rubbish. And we are meant to call it an election ?
HOw does any of this behaivour affect us ? It has nothing to do with running the country. A playground squabble about who is " more wrong" than the other. good god.
- Rod Mackintosh, berlin gemany, 08/02/2010 10:37
Report abuse
Does that include all MPs that stole,or only those who stole a lot.Cameron,as a multi-millionaire also had to repay for claims not justified,so will he be prosecuted,or is he above the law.
- Dave, london, 08/02/2010 10:22
Report abuse
we had enough of this expenses saga,they better change the scenario,we've heard it all before.
- Fodil, london,uk, 08/02/2010 10:18
Report abuse
Nice soundbite Mr Cameron. However in around quarter of a year there will be a general election and I still do not know what you truly stand for. But then the same applies for the other (main) party leaders. You should all be unhappy about that! But then soundbites and points seem to appeal to you all, but why?
- Michael De Ferrari, London, 08/02/2010 10:11
Report abuse
I'm afraid that Flash is being something of a hypocrite here when large numbers of his shadow front bench are serial flippers and dippers.
Sure they are not the suckers being thrown to the wolves but there's a real chance these people will be in Government soon and we haven't forgotten. No sir!
- Steve, Brentford, 08/02/2010 10:11
Report abuse
A good comment from Mr David Cameron MP. But, now will he promise not to repeal or alter the Nolan and Neill reforms of party political funding, if elected P-M?
- Andrew, London, 08/02/2010 10:08
Report abuse
Empty and hypocritical posturing from Cameron. I can't believe people who have been taken in by a man who has failed to sack his THREE front benchers - Osborne, Gove and Lansley - who have been caught "flipping" their second home allowances to maximise expenses. Not only this, but his party still continues to take money from Lord Ashcroft and support a system of party funding by millionaires that is utterly corrupt as well as opposing changes to our electoral system to make it fairer. Until he changes tack on all of these issues, Cameron has no credibility as a reformer at all.
- Robert C, London UK, 08/02/2010 09:50
Report abuse
David Cameron is quite right. Labour has been tinkering with too many Laws since they came to power. We'll put the statistics aside since they tinker with those as well. BUT just how far are Labour MPs going to go?
Next they'll be asking for legal immunnity for driving offences. They are NOT above the Law especially for matters of their own personal making. Is there no Labour shame or are they just being manipulatively stupid?
- Tony, Herts, 08/02/2010 09:32
Report abuse
Thank goodness that, in David Cameron, we have someone who is both prepared to say what we are all thinking and take on his fellow MPs.
The fact is very clear; Brown has either deliberately or complacently missed every single opportunity to show any sort of leadership. He is clearly nothing more than a puppet prime minister, controlled by the other Labour MPs and prohibited from doing anything which may adversely affect them, regardless of what the electorate demands.
- Londoner, London, 08/02/2010 09:02
Report abuse
