Did the Lib Dems know about Huhne's points swap?

Newly-released emails show that Vicky Pryce claimed to have told Vince Cable and others about the incident.

Did senior Lib Dems know that Vicky Pryce accepted speeding points on Chris Huhne's behalf? That's the suggestion from a series of fascinating emails released from the trial following Pryce's conviction. 

In an email dated 9 April 2011, Huhne's former wife told the Sunday Times's Isabel Oakeshott: 

Actually I had told Vince [Cable] and Rachel [his wife] about points before when the three of us were having supper about a month ago – they were horrified at the time but VC has probably forgotten it by now. He was v tired that night.

Nine days later, she informed Oakeshott:

Having lunch with Miriam c tmr. Should I hint at anything? I told Vince there is something hanging over him [Huhne] and he wanted to tell Clegg.

On 26 April 2011, Oakeshott asked Pryce:

To what extent is Clegg aware that something is hanging over Huhne (you mentioned it to Miriam, didn't you?)

Pryce replied:

Yes, I have told VC [Vince Cable], Miriam C, MOak [Lord Oakeshott] … and a few other Lib Dem Lords and others working close to NC [Nick Clegg]. 

Unsurprisingly, the Lib Dems have been quick to deny any suggestion of a cover-up. A party spokesman said: "Vince, Matthew and Miriam are all clear that the allegation about driving points was not raised with them."

In addition, a spokesman for Cable said: "Vince and Rachel have no recollection of the issue of points being raised with them over the course of dinner with Vicky Price on 28 January 2011.

They have consulted their personal records which confirm that the issue first came to their attention in May 2011 when the story broke in the press."

Miriam González Durántez said: "I have never ever been told by Vicky or anybody else about the traffic points story. I got to know about this when everybody else did."

And Lord Oakeshott, a close ally of Cable and a third cousin of Isabel Oakeshott, said: "Vicky must have been under great pressure but I am sure she never raised a question of points with me". 

But were they aware of "indirect" and "non-specific" concerns? That's the question that will be asked. 

Vicky Pryce, ex-wife of Chris Huhne, arrives at Southwark Crown Court on March 7, 2013 in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

PMQs review: Jeremy Corbyn prompts Tory outrage as he blames Grenfell Tower fire on austerity

To Conservative cries of "shame on you!", the Labour leader warned that "we all pay a price in public safety" for spending cuts.

A fortnight after the Grenfell Tower fire erupted, the tragedy continues to cast a shadow over British politics. Rather than probing Theresa May on the DUP deal, Jeremy Corbyn asked a series of forensic questions on the incident, in which at least 79 people are confirmed to have died.

In the first PMQs of the new parliament, May revealed that the number of buildings that had failed fire safety tests had risen to 120 (a 100 per cent failure rate) and that the cladding used on Grenfell Tower was "non-compliant" with building regulations (Corbyn had asked whether it was "legal").

After several factual questions, the Labour leader rose to his political argument. To cries of "shame on you!" from Tory MPs, he warned that local authority cuts of 40 per cent meant "we all pay a price in public safety". Corbyn added: “What the tragedy of Grenfell Tower has exposed is the disastrous effects of austerity. The disregard for working-class communities, the terrible consequences of deregulation and cutting corners." Corbyn noted that 11,000 firefighters had been cut and that the public sector pay cap (which Labour has tabled a Queen's Speech amendment against) was hindering recruitment. "This disaster must be a wake-up call," he concluded.

But May, who fared better than many expected, had a ready retort. "The cladding of tower blocks did not start under this government, it did not start under the previous coalition governments, the cladding of tower blocks began under the Blair government," she said. “In 2005 it was a Labour government that introduced the regulatory reform fire safety order which changed the requirements to inspect a building on fire safety from the local fire authority to a 'responsible person'." In this regard, however, Corbyn's lack of frontbench experience is a virtue – no action by the last Labour government can be pinned on him. 

Whether or not the Conservatives accept the link between Grenfell and austerity, their reluctance to defend continued cuts shows an awareness of how politically vulnerable they have become (No10 has announced that the public sector pay cap is under review).

Though Tory MP Philip Davies accused May of having an "aversion" to policies "that might be popular with the public" (he demanded the abolition of the 0.7 per cent foreign aid target), there was little dissent from the backbenches – reflecting the new consensus that the Prime Minister is safe (in the absence of an attractive alternative).

And May, whose jokes sometimes fall painfully flat, was able to accuse Corbyn of saying "one thing to the many and another thing to the few" in reference to his alleged Trident comments to Glastonbury festival founder Michael Eavis. But the Labour leader, no longer looking fearfully over his shoulder, displayed his increased authority today. Though the Conservatives may jeer him, the lingering fear in Tory minds is that they and the country are on divergent paths. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

0800 7318496