|
9) ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING
NON-REGISTRATION OF DONATIONS TO ELECTION EXPENSES
720. During the course of
autumn 1996, and in particular following the collapse of the libel
action brought by Mr Hamilton and Mr Greer against The
Guardian, a number of reports appeared in the press concerning
alleged payments made by Mr Greer to the campaign funds of various
Members in connection with the general elections of 1987 or 1992
(or, in some cases, both).
721. In her statement of
14 October 1996, the Speaker referred to the cumulative effect
both of these allegations and of the other allegations addressed
in this inquiry and she expressed her concern that "the reputation
of the House has been called into question".
722. In my initial discussions
with the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges about my
terms of reference for this inquiry, it took the view that it
was undesirable for such widespread allegations to be left unanswered,
even where no formal complaint against the Member concerned had
been made.
723. At that stage The
Guardian had not made clear whether it intended to proceed
with such a complaint against the Members concerned, who were:
Mr Robert Atkins; Mr Alan Beith; Mr Vivian Bendall; Mr John
Bowis; Sir Graham Bright; Mr Nirj Deva; Sir Anthony Durant; Mrs
Gwyneth Dunwoody; Mr Doug Hoyle; Mr Norman Lamont; Mr David Mellor;
Mr Michael Portillo; Mr David Shaw; Mr Chris Smith; Sir Malcolm
Thornton; Sir Gerard Vaughan; and Sir John Wheeler.
724. Two other Members named,
Sir Andrew Bowden and Mr Gerry Malone, were the
subject of allegations which went wider than the question of election
donations from Mr Greer. Their cases have accordingly been considered
in conjunction with those of the relevant groups of Members earlier
in this report.
725. My initial expectation
was that The Guardian would, indeed, lodge a complaint
against all these Members, since, both in correspondence with
me and in public statements questioning the adequacy of the resources
available to my inquiry, the editor had referred to the number
of Members whose conduct would need to be investigated as anything
up to thirty. Moreover, many of the previously published references
to Members who had received election donations from Mr Greer were
repeated in The Guardian's book Sleaze.
726. I was therefore somewhat
surprised when, in a letter dated 10 January 1997, Mr Rusbridger
told me that, with the exception of Sir Andrew Bowden,
he had, in fact, never had any intention of complaining formally
about these Members.
727. Nevertheless, the tone
of the press articles had been such as to imply that the Members
had committed an irregularity by failing to register these campaign
donations from Mr Greer in the Register of Members' Interests.
728. The rules, as they
applied at the time of the 1987 and 1992 elections, stated that
registration was obligatory in respect of any sponsorship of a
Member in his capacity as a Parliamentary candidate "where
to the knowledge of a Member the sponsorship in any case exceeds
25 per cent of [his] election expenses". In this context
the term "sponsorship" covers any form of financial
support, including one-off payments, and "expenses"
means the amount included in the statutory election return as
having been actually incurred by the candidate.
729. In the light of the
Speaker's statement of 14 October 1996 and the views expressed
by the Select Committee, I decided - not least out of fairness
to all those concerned - to write to each of the named Members
in order to establish the facts and to satisfy myself, where any
payment of the sort alleged was received, that any registration
requirement had been observed.
730. In my letter I asked
each Member to state:
- what
donations either he or his constituency association/local party
received from, or on behalf of, Mr Greer towards general election
campaign funds, however described, in respect of the 1987 and/or
1992 elections, specifying the exact amount or amounts, where
applicable;
- what,
in respect of the election at which any such donation was received,
was the total figure for the election expenses actually incurred
by him, as declared in his statutory return;
- whether,
during either election period, he received any other benefit,
for example in the form of research or secretarial assistance
or accommodation paid for, wholly or in part, by or on behalf
of Mr Greer; and, if so, what was the nature of the assistance.
731. With two exceptions
(Mr Deva and Mr Lamont), I was able to satisfy myself,
on the basis of the detailed responses to these questions, that
no contravention of the rules on registration had occurred. All
the donations involved were of amounts which fell comfortably
within the 25 per cent threshold for registration. I reported
this conclusion to the Select Committee on 19 March and the Committee
endorsed it in its Fifth Report of 1996-97.[334]
Mr Deva
732. In Mr Deva's
first reply to me he stated that, so far as his candidacy in Hammersmith
in 1987 was concerned, he had personally received nothing from
Mr Greer, but he had "no idea" whether he [Mr Greer]
had contributed towards his association. He added that, as far
as he was concerned, the statutory return of election expenses
was a matter for the party agent. He did not deal with the position
in 1992.
733. Although Mr Deva was
not elected in 1987, I wrote to him again pointing out that the
obligation to register, where necessary, was on the Member,
not the constituency party, and asking him to provide the information
requested. In his second letter, Mr Deva again repeated
his view that this was a matter for the local Conservative association.
734. I did not pursue this
issue any further with Mr Deva since I had no reason to
believe that he or his constituency association had ever received
a donation which would have exceeded the permitted 25 per cent
limit.
Mr Lamont
735. Mr Lamont's
reply raised rather different questions. He told me that in 1987
his association had accepted a cheque for £2,000 from Ian
Greer Associates, and that, in 1992, it had received, at Mr Greer's
prompting, £5,000 from DHL, the courier service company.
On the face of it, both these donations breached the 25 per cent
limit.
736. Mr Lamont maintained,
however, that these sums had been paid to his association and
were "not the funds of their candidate". He also argued
that in the run-up to both elections the association's continuous
fighting fund was boosted by appeals for donations. He understood
that Mr Greer's 1987 contribution had been made before the appeal
had been launched. In both elections some £21,000 had been
raised in this way and the campaign expenses had been paid out
of this general pool, not from the individual donations by Mr
Greer or DHL. Mr Lamont added that, so far as the registration
rules were concerned, he did not consider himself to have been
sponsored either by DHL or Mr Greer (who by the time of the 1992
election had become a constituent of Mr Lamont's and an
active member of his association).
737. Mr Lamont's
remark that the contribution from Mr Greer in 1987 was paid before
the fighting fund appeal had been launched raised the further
question of when the election campaign is regarded as having started
for the purposes of the registration rules. A similar point arises
in relation to donations made after the campaign is over, but
which are clearly intended as contributions to election expenses.
(I have dealt separately in the Report with this point as it
arises in the case of Sir Andrew Bowden).[335]
334 HC
(1996-97) 362. Back
335 See
paras 296-306. Back
|
