The Metropolitan Police has confirmed it has received a letter from the SNP asking it to investigate cash for honours allegations against the Conservatives.
A spokesman for the force said it is currently “considering the contents of the correspondence” but an investigation or formal assessment into the allegations has not started.
SNP MP Pete Wishart revealed on Monday he had written to the Met after a report in The Sunday Times said 15 of the last 16 Conservative Party treasurers have been offered a seat in the House of Lords after donating more than £3m to the party.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:52
‘We want a rich mix in the House of Lords’ – minister
An ex-party chairman was quoted by the newspaper as saying: “The truth is the entire political establishment knows this happens and they do nothing about it… the most telling line is, once you pay your £3m, you get your peerage.”
The Conservatives have denied there is any link between the donations and nominations to sit in the upper chamber.
Advertisement
A Conservative spokesman told the newspaper: “We do not believe that successful business people and philanthropists who contribute to political causes and parties should be disqualified from sitting in the legislature.”
Mr Wishart said he was “not accusing anyone of anything”, but told Sky News the claims had to be looked into.
More from Politics
“There’s a very clear piece of legislation dating back to 1925, which says and states that it is an offence to be awarded an honour for the giving of money,” he said.
“What we’re going to do is ask the Metropolitan Police just to see if there’s any link between all these Conservative donors giving millions and millions of pounds to the Conservative Party and finding a way into the House of Lords, which is clearly against the law.”
His call was backed by Labour’s shadow communities secretary Steve Reed, who told Sky News’ Kay Burley: “I think it is right to ask the police to look into this because it is a fact now that the background that is most likely to get you a seat in the House of Lords is being the treasurer of the Conservative Party.
“And it looks like if you donate £3m to the Tory party and become their treasurer, you get into the House of Lords. That is not acceptable. You shouldn’t be able to buy a seat in the House of Lords.”
But deputy prime minister Mr Raab defended the government, saying: “There is absolutely no question that we haven’t followed all of the rules in relation to that and nobody is suggesting that we have done anything wrong.”
He added it is his view that the SNP are “just trying to rake muck”.
The cash for honours claims came as the spotlight was turned on MPs’ conduct following crticism over the government’s handling of the Owen Paterson lobbying scandal.
Mr Paterson, a veteran Conservative, was facing a 30-day Commons suspension after parliament’s independent sleaze investigator found he broke lobbying rules during his £110,000-a-year private sector work.
The government was forced into a U-turn after it ordered MPs to back reforming the standards system by creating a Tory-led committee and re-examining the case against Mr Paterson.
Mr Paterson then quit as an MP as he said the scrutiny was unfair for his family.
The Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman has “clarified” the 2010 Equality Act, Harriet Harman has said – as she urged people to feel “confident they can use their common sense”.
The Labour peer and former minister put forward the Equality Bill, now the Equality Act 2010, which protects people from discrimination in the workplace and in wider society.
The legislation had become the centre of controversy in the debate about transgender rights as it was not clear whether the term “sex” referred to biological sex or “certificated” sex as legally defined by the 2004 Gender Recognition Act (GRA).
Last week, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the definition of a “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to “a biological woman and biological sex”.
It means that some single-sex service providers will be able to exclude trans women if they deem it proportionate and necessary.
But speaking to Beth Rigby on Sky News’ Electoral Dysfunction podcast, Baroness Harman said the providers of single-sex spaces were always able to do this under the Act.
More on Transgender
Related Topics:
She said: “What we’ve got to do now, is with the Supreme Court having clarified what we said all along in the 2010 act, that consensus has got to be rebuilt.
“I strongly believe that most people don’t like to see trans people discriminated against and persecuted, and they want to just live and let live and let people get on and live the best lives they can.
“And most people understand that if you’re dealing with women who’ve been traumatised by male violence, it might be that actually a trans woman there prevents them feeling they can be comfortable in a refuge or in a counselling session.”
During the podcast, Baroness Harman, Beth Rigby and Baroness Davidson were played audio sent in from Ellie, a 25-year-old trans woman from Glasgow.
She said she was “devastated” by last week’s ruling.
“I’m scared and I am angry,” she said.
“I don’t think there’s clarity yet as to what this ruling actually means for my community in law.
“The GRA has now been rendered practically meaningless, and the UK government could respond by saying ‘yep, fair enough, let’s get them updated so that we can make sure that trans people are respected and protected in society for who they are’, but instead, they’ve pounced on us – with government ministers even suggesting that trans women can’t use women’s spaces like toilets.
“I mean, where am I supposed to go?
“It’s clearly not safe for so many trans women like me to use the men’s toilets, not to mention completely dehumanising.
“It’s not appropriate for a male police officer to get to pat down my chest, and it’s also clearly completely unworkable.”
She added: “This whole thing is being done under the guise of making some women feel safer, while actually making so many of us, whether trans or not, materially less safe, and I don’t even think we’d be having this conversation if the media and some politicians hadn’t spent the past five years demonising us.
Water regulators and the government have failed to provide a trusted and resilient industry at the same time as bills rise, the state spending watchdog has said.
Public trust in the water sector has reached a record low, according to a report from the National Audit Office (NAO) on the privatised industry.
Not since monitoring began in 2011 has consumer trust been at such a level, it said.
The last time bills rose at this rate was just before the global financial crash, between 2004-05 and 2005-06.
Regulation failure
All three water regulators – Ofwat, the Environment Agency and Drinking Water Inspectorate – and the government department for environment, food and rural affairs (Defra) have played a role in the failure, the NAO said, adding they do not know enough about the condition or age of water infrastructure and the level of funding needed to maintain it.
More on Environment
Related Topics:
Since the utilities were privatised in 1989, the average rate of replacement for water assets is 125 years, the watchdog said. If the current pace is maintained, it will take 700 years to replace the existing water mains.
Image: The NAO said the government and regulators have failed to drive sufficient investment into the sector. File pic: PA
Despite there being three regulators tasked with water, there is no one responsible for proactively inspecting wastewater to prevent environmental harm, the report found.
Instead, regulation is reactive, fining firms when harm has already occurred.
Financial penalties and rewards, however, have not worked as water company performance hasn’t been “consistent or significantly improved” in recent years, the report said.
‘Gaps, inconsistencies, tension’
The NAO called for this to change and for a body to be tasked with the whole process and assets. At present, the Drinking Water Inspectorate monitors water coming into a house, but there is no entity looking at water leaving a property.
Similarly no body is tasked with cybersecurity for wastewater businesses.
As well as there being gaps, “inconsistent” watchdog responsibilities cause “tension” and overlap, the report found.
The Environment Agency has no obligation to balance customer affordability with its duty to the environment when it assesses plans, the NAO said.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:53
Thames Water boss can ‘save’ company
Company and investment criticism
Regulators have also been blamed for failing to drive enough funding into the water sector.
From having spoken to investors through numerous meetings, the NAO learnt that confidence had declined, which has made it more expensive to invest in companies providing water.
Even investors found Ofwat’s five-yearly price review process “complex and difficult”, the report said.
Financial resilience of the industry has “weakened” with Ofwat having signalled concerns about the financial resilience of 10 of the 16 major water companies.
Most notably, the UK’s largest provider, Thames Water, faced an uncertain future and potential nationalisation before securing an emergency £3bn loan, adding to its already massive £16bn debt pile.
Water businesses have been overspending, with only some extra spending linked to high inflation in recent years, leading to rising bills, the NAO said.
Over the next 25 years, companies plan to spend £290bn on infrastructure and investment, while Ofwat estimates a further £52bn will be needed to deliver up to 30 water supply projects, including nine reservoirs.
Image: The NAO said regulators do not have a good understanding of the condition of infrastructure assets
What else is going on?
From today, a new government law comes into effect which could see water bosses who cover up illegal sewage spills imprisoned for up to two years.
Such measures are necessary, Defra said, as some water companies have obstructed investigations and failed to hand over evidence on illegal sewage discharges, preventing crackdowns.
Meanwhile, the Independent Water Commission (IWC), led by former Bank of England deputy governor Sir Jon Cunliffe, is carrying out the largest review of the industry since privatisation.
What the regulators and government say?
In response to the report, Ofwat said: “The NAO’s report is an important contribution to the debate about the future of the water industry.
“We agree with the NAO’s recommendations for Ofwat and we continue to progress our work in these areas, and to contribute to the IWC’s wider review of the regulatory framework. We also look forward to the IWC’s recommendations and to working with government and other regulators to better deliver for customers and the environment.”
An Environment Agency spokesperson said: “We have worked closely with the National Audit Office in producing this report and welcome its substantial contribution to the debate on the future of water regulation.
“We recognise the significant challenges facing the water industry. That is why we will be working with Defra and other water regulators to implement the report’s recommendations and update our frameworks to reflect its findings.”
A Defra spokesperson said: “The government has taken urgent action to fix the water industry – but change will not happen overnight.
“We have put water companies under tough special measures through our landmark Water Act, with new powers to ban the payment of bonuses to polluting water bosses and bring tougher criminal charges against them if they break the law.”
Water UK, which represents the water firms, has been contacted for comment.
Jay Clayton, recently appointed interim US Attorney for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) and former chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission, has begun offering statements in criminal cases involving crypto fraud.
In an April 23 notice, the US Attorney’s Office said Eugene William Austin, also known as Hugh Austin, had been sentenced to 18 years in prison following his conviction on conspiracy to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and conspiracy to commit interstate transportation of stolen property. Together with his son, Brandon, sentenced to four years, Austin offered fraudulent crypto investment services, resulting in roughly $12 million in losses to more than 24 people.
“For years, Hugh Austin was the leader of a fraud and money laundering scheme that stole more than $12 million from more than two dozen victims,” said Clayton. “Austin involved his own son in his crimes, working with him to rip off victims and spending investor money on personal expenses, like luxury hotels […] Austin will now be held accountable for the harm he caused to individual investors and others.”
The criminal case involving digital assets marked one of Clayton’s first public statements since becoming the interim US Attorney on April 22. US President Donald Trump nominated Clayton on Jan. 20 when he took office. The district has since seen the resignation of acting US Attorney Danielle Sassoon in response to the Justice Department directing her to halt a case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams.
The nation’s ‘sovereign district’ overseen by a Trump appointee?
Under current law, Clayton can serve as interim US Attorney for the district for 120 days without Senate confirmation. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer blocked a vote on Clayton’s nomination, saying Trump had “no fidelity to the law.”
Clayton will likely oversee SDNY during the sentencing hearing for former Celsius CEO Alex Mashinsky and potentially other criminal cases involving cryptocurrency. The district is home to Wall Street firms and many of the country’s most prominent financial institutions.