Select Committee on Standards and Privileges Seventh Report


Conduct of Mr George Galloway



Introduction

1. We have considered a memorandum by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards relating to a complaint against Mr George Galloway, the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, by Mr Duncan Crossey. Mr Crossey complained that Mr Galloway had failed to include in his entry in the Register of Members' Interests the George Galloway Legal Fund (the Legal Fund). Mr Galloway had launched this fund in June 2003 to help finance his legal costs in libel actions he had initiated against the Daily Telegraph and the Christian Science Monitor.

2. The Commissioner's memorandum is appended to this Report. In summary he concludes, arguing from first principles, that Mr Galloway should have registered both the existence of the Legal Fund (under Category 10) and those individual contributions which exceeded the threshold for registration as gifts (under Category 5).

3. Mr Galloway consistently maintained to the Commissioner that he had no obligation to register the Legal Fund. In essence he advances three arguments in support of this contention:[1] the existence of the Fund and its objectives were self-evidently in the public domain; he had no personal access to the resources of the Legal Fund; he now had no need to draw on its resources and, as he undertook to do in this eventuality when publicly soliciting contributions in 2003, he intended to repay all contributors. He maintains that the Legal Fund would only have become a benefit to him had he lost the libel case, as he would then have drawn on it to mitigate his legal bills, and states that he would have registered it at that point.

4. Prior to considering the Commissioner's memorandum, we invited Mr Galloway's comments on it, and these are reproduced at Appendix 2.[2] In these, he strongly disputes "the argumentation, conclusion and public interest justification" of that memorandum.

5. We consider Mr Galloway's arguments in detail later in this report. However, we note at this point that the only issue for us to decide is whether, as Mr Crossey alleges in his complaint, Mr Galloway should have disclosed the existence of the Legal Fund in his entry in the Register of Members' Interests and, if so, in what way.

The Context

6. At the heart of this case is a fundamental difference of view between Mr Galloway and the Commissioner as to the scope of the interests which are registrable. The present structure derives in large measure from the First Report from the Select Committee on Members' Interests of Session 1991-92,[3] which was, in all material respects relevant to this Report, approved by the House on 28 June 1993.[4]

7. In approving the Report, the House endorsed the main purpose of the Register of Members' Interests as "to provide information of any pecuniary interest or other material benefit which a Member receives which might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions, speeches or votes in Parliament, or actions taken in his or her capacity as a Member of Parliament".[5] This statement is now incorporated in the Guide to the Rules, as the Commissioner notes in his memorandum.[6]

8. The Committee also proposed "more detailed and explicit guidance to Members" about the classes of interest they were required to disclose, and these classes are essentially those still in use in the Register. However, the Committee continued:

    "We do not wish this increased precision to detract from the obligation upon Members to keep the overall definition of purpose in mind when registering their interests. It is a cardinal principle that Members are responsible for making a full disclosure of their own interests in the Register; and if they have relevant interests which do not fall clearly into one or other of the specified categories, they will nonetheless be expected to register them." [7]

9. The Committee went on to lay down nine specific categories for registrable interests, updating those originally approved by the House in 1975.[8] It added a tenth (Category 10 in the Register) "for the registration of interests which Members consider to be relevant and covered by the definition of the Register's purpose, but which do not obviously fall within any of the specified categories".[9]

10. It is clear from the above that the House saw the nature of the interest as the paramount element in deciding whether an interest is registrable, the specific classification being a secondary matter. Neither we or our predecessors appear to have been required to decide whether a fund such as the Legal Fund should be registered. We therefore consider that the Commissioner was right to approach this question from first principles, and note that he did so in a way wholly consistent with the approach of the Select Committee on Members' Interests in 1992.

The Key Questions

11. Mr Galloway argues that there was no need to register the Fund as its existence was public knowledge. He maintains that "the Register is supposed to put into the public domain details of members interests which might otherwise be unknown to the public".[10]

12. The Commissioner rejected this argument, and so do we. As we have made clear at paragraph 8 above, it is the intention of the House that any relevant interest, not just interests which are not public knowledge, should be included in the Register.

13. Given the definition of the main purpose of the Register, we agree that the two key questions are those identified by the Commissioner in paragraph 32 of his memorandum.

14. Did Mr Galloway receive any pecuniary interest or other material benefit from the existence of the Legal Fund? The Commissioner concludes that Mr Galloway received both. It is clear from Mr Galloway's own evidence that he had a pecuniary interest as the purpose of the Legal Fund was to help finance his legal costs.[11] Indeed in his e-mail appealing for funds he said "I can't do it without your help and I hope you will donate what you can."[12] The material benefit included the costs paid from the Legal Fund;[13] even if these are subsequently recoverable following Mr Galloway's victory in the Court of Appeal, he has avoided meeting these from his personal resources in the meantime.

15. Mr Galloway does not appear to have challenged the similar conclusions in the Commissioner's memorandum. We therefore conclude that Mr Galloway received both a pecuniary interest and material benefit from the existence of the Legal Fund.

16. Was the benefit such as a reasonable person might think could influence Mr Galloway in his actions, speeches or votes in Parliament, or actions taken in his capacity as a Member?

17. Two preliminary questions also need to be addressed prior to seeking to answer these questions. The first is the status of the donations: should they be seen purely as gifts, and thus be treated as subject to the requirements of Category 5 if they related in any way to his membership of the House? The second is whether Mr Galloway's position as a Member of Parliament was in any way material to his taking the libel action.

18. On the status of the donations, we have no doubt that the Commissioner was right to regard these as gifts. As the Guide to the Rules makes clear in relation to gifts, the motives of the donor are one relevant factor. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we cannot believe that donors had any realistic basis at the time of deciding on Mr Galloway's prospects of ultimate success, and thus of assessing the likely prospects of their donation being returned. They were in reality, as Mr Galloway maintains, making a gesture of support for him in launching his legal action. We have no doubt that it is reasonable to view donations as gifts to Mr Galloway to help meet his legal costs.

19. Mr Galloway seeks to argue that even if they were gifts, there was no prospect of him being influenced by them, even by those which exceeded the Category 5 threshold. The threshold set by the House for registration is the point at which it considers that there is prima facie evidence that a reasonable person might think a Member might be influenced. Whether or not Mr Galloway was in fact influenced is immaterial.

20. The existence of the Legal Fund influenced the conduct of the libel action, but was Mr Galloway's position as a Member in any way relevant to it. Mr Galloway asserts that it was not. [14] The Commissioner identifies substantial evidence to suggest that it was.[15]

21. We note from the Court of Appeal Judgement that the allegations in the Daily Telegraph clearly refer to Mr Galloway's membership of the House. We also note that in a leader published on 23 April 2003, the newspaper commented of Mr Galloway:

    "….He has betrayed Parliament…..Whether or not he has committed a criminal offence, he has done great damage, not only to his own reputation, but also to that of Parliament".

22. The Daily Telegraph clearly linked its criticisms of Mr Galloway to his membership of the House of Commons. In these circumstances, and in the light of the evidence referred to by the Commissioner, we agree that Mr Galloway's position as a Member of Parliament was indeed relevant to the libel action.

23. We therefore share the Commissioner's view that both questions set out in paragraph 16 are answered in the affirmative. It follows that we agree with the Commissioner that both the Legal Fund, and individual donations exceeding the Category 5 threshold, are in principle registrable.

24. This case raises, as the Commissioner pointed out in his memorandum, a situation which appears not to have arisen previously. The Legal Fund is, for the most part, an accumulation of a large number of very modest contributions (leaving aside the four largest donations, the average contribution was about £40) to a single vehicle for a common purpose, which accumulated to a significant sum. Had this been multiple sponsorship or gifts from a single donor, the rules would have required their aggregation. From first principles, it is clear that in this case the vehicle should have been registered, irrespective of the existence of the four large donations. As there is no other category in which such vehicles can be registered irrespective of the size of donations, it is clear that, as the Commissioner has concluded, they should be registered under Category 10 if they met the overall criteria for registration laid down by the House.

25. The Commissioner has suggested that, for the future, the scope of Category 5 (Gifts) might be extended specifically to include collective funds of this and of a similar nature. We propose to give consideration to this suggestion in our forthcoming review of the Guide to the Rules, and we therefore welcome views on this suggestion.

Other points raised by Mr Galloway

26. In the concluding section of his final submission to us, Mr Galloway makes a number of more general assertions, not all of which are directly relevant to the matter on which we are required to come to a decision. We do, however, wish to comment on two of them: that the interpretation of the rules has in some way been varied by us, to Mr Galloway's detriment; and that there is a political motivation behind the timing of this report.[16]

27. We reject any suggestion that the interpretation of the rules has been varied in this case to Mr Galloway's detriment. As both we and the Commissioner have demonstrated, our conclusions as to the registrability of both the Legal Fund and certain large donations are firmly based on the principles underlying the arrangements approved by the House on the advice of the Select Committee on Members' Interests nearly 15 years ago.

28. We also reject any suggestion of political motivation in the timing of this report. Indeed, the primary reason why we have not previously reached a conclusion in this case is the length of time that Mr Galloway and his advisers have taken to reply to enquiries from the Commissioner. In this context, we note that it took over two months for Mr Bays to respond on Mr Galloway's behalf to the Commissioner's request for a formal response to the complaint,[17] and over a month to produce the list of donors. Mr Galloway and his advisers undoubtedly could and should have responded much more promptly to the Commissioner's requests. Had they done so, we could have disposed of this complaint significantly earlier.

Conclusions

29. As we have already said, we agree with the Commissioner that Mr Galloway should have registered the Legal Fund under Category 10 and the four individual donations that exceeded the registration threshold for Category 5 (Gifts). We therefore uphold Mr Crossey's complaint.

30. In the light of this conclusion, Mr Galloway should register both the Legal Funds and the relevant donations accordingly, within seven days of the publication of this report. In accordance with our usual practice in cases of failure to register an interest, we have asked the Commissioner to ensure that these entries appear in the next published Register in a distinctive form. If Mr Galloway fails to comply, we reserve the right to give further consideration to this case, and to report again to the House.


1   WE6, p. 24. Back

2   p. 26. Back

3   HC 326 (1991-92). Back

4   CJ (1992-93), p. 709. Back

5   HC 326 (1991-92), para 27. Back

6   Appendix 1, para. 31. Back

7   Ibid, para 29. Back

8   Ibid, para 6. Back

9   Ibid, para. 36. Back

10   WE6, p. 24. Back

11   WE2, p. 21. Back

12   WE2, p. 22. Back

13   Appendix 1, para 23. Back

14   Appendix 2, p. 26. Back

15   Appendix 1, paras 43-44. Back

16   Appendix 2, p. 26. Back

17   Appendix 1, paras 15-16. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 26 April 2006