THE London Met has refused to say why it decided not to investigate allegations of a “cash for honours” culture at the top of the Tory party.
The police force, which is currently embroiled in the Tory government’s partygate scandal and suggestions that it may be involved in a “cover-up”, declined to tell openDemocracy why it had refused to investigate allegations of cash for honours.
It came after Pete Wishart, the senior SNP MP, wrote to the Met’s Commissioner Cressida Dick in November urging the force to take action after it was revealed that 15 of the last 16 of the Conservative Party's treasurers have been offered a seat in the Lords - but only after having each donated more than £3 million to the party.
A former party chairman reportedly said: “Once you pay your £3m, you get your peerage.”
The most controversial appointment was that of Peter Cruddas, 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 it was “beyond all doubt that the honours system [had] been abused by the Tories”, but the police said there was insufficient evidence.
Now, the Met has said that revealing the reasoning behind their decision could cause it “operational harm”.
“Such a disclosure would not be in the public interest,” it said, responding to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests from openDemocracy. “It would be harmful to our policing functions.”
The Met’s decision not to probe the allegations, despite having set a precedent for doing so under Tony Blair’s government, was questioned by barrister Jolyon Maugham at the time.
Responding to the force’s decision not to explain its refusal to investigate the “cash for honours” culture, Wishart (below) said there seemed to be scope for the Met to U-turn.
The SNP MP said: "The Metropolitan Police's failure to investigate the Tory cash for peerage scandal was disappointing. However, now that they have opened an investigation into alleged parties within No 10, there is no reason why they should not reconsider investigating it.
"Boris Johnson may think he has got off the hook, but the court of public opinion will find him guilty. No one believes it is a coincidence that so many wealthy Tory donors have been handed peerages after donating multi-million pound sums to the party - it is utterly corrupt.
"People in Scotland continue to look on in horror at what's going on at Westminster. The sooner Scotland can become an independent country, and shake off the broken Westminster system for good, the better."
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