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.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Even before Brexit, immigrants are shunning the UK

The 49,000 fall in net migration will come at a cost.

Article 50 may not have been triggered yet but immigrants are already shunning the UK. The number of newcomers fell by 23,000 to 596,000 in the year to last September, with a sharp drop in migrants from the EU8 states (such as Poland and the Czech Republic). Some current residents are trying their luck elsewhere: emigration rose by 26,000 to 323,000. Consequently, net migration has fallen by 49,000 to 273,000, far above the government's target of "tens of thousands" but the lowest level since June 2014.

The causes of the UK's reduced attractiveness are not hard to discern. The pound’s depreciation (which makes British wages less competitive), the spectre of Brexit and a rise in hate crimes and xenophobia are likely to be the main deterrents (though numbers from Romania and Bulgaria remain healthy). Ministers have publicly welcomed the figures but many privately acknowledge that they come at a price. The OBR recently forecast that lower migration would cost £6bn a year by 2020-21. As well as reflecting weaker growth, reduced immigration is likely to reinforce it. Migrants pay far more in tax than they claim in benefits, with a net contribution of £7bn a year. An OBR study found that with zero net migration, public sector debt would rise to 145 per cent of GDP by 2062-63, while with high net migration it would fall to 73 per cent.

Earlier this week, David Davis revealed the government's economic anxieties when he told a press conference in Estonia: "In the hospitality sector, hotels and restaurants, in the social care sector, working in agriculture, it will take time. It will be years and years before we get British citizens to do those jobs. Don’t expect just because we’re changing who makes the decision on the policy, the door will suddenly shut - it won’t."

But Theresa May, whose efforts to meet the net migration target as Home Secretary were obstructed by the Treasury, is determined to achieve a lasting reduction in immigration. George Osborne, her erstwhile adversary, recently remarked: "The government has chosen – and I respect this decision – not to make the economy the priority." But in her subsequent interview with the New Statesman, May argued: "It is possible to achieve an outcome which is both a good result for the economy and is a good result for people who want us to control immigration – to be able to set our own rules on the immigration of people coming from the European Union. It is perfectly possible to find an arrangement and a partnership with the EU which does that."

Much depends on how "good" is defined. The British economy is resilient enough to endure a small reduction in immigration but a dramatic fall would severely affect growth. Not since 1997 has "net migration" been in the "tens of thousands". As Davis acknowledged, the UK has since become dependent on high immigration. Both the government and voters may only miss migrants when they're gone.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.