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