4. Letter
to Mr George Galloway from the Commissioner, 4 October 2005
Further to my e-mails of 22 August and after some
further correspondence with Mr Crossey, I am now able to send
you a copy of Mr Crossey's letter of complaint, dated 18 August.
At Mr Crossey's request, I have blanked off his address from the
letter.
You will see that the burden of Mr Crossey's complaint
is that you have not included in your entry in the Register of
Members' Interests the benefit you have received and are continuing
to receive from the fund launched to finance your libel actions
against the "Christian Science Monitor" and the "Daily
Telegraph".
The relevant provisions of the Rules on the registration
and declaration of interests appear to be Category 4 (Sponsorships)
and Category 5 (Gifts, benefits and hospitality (UK)). You can
find these in paragraphs 25-34 of the Guide to the Rules on the
Conduct of Members.
Under Category 4 (b), a Member of Parliament is required
to register:
". . .any . . .form of financial or material
support as a Member of Parliament, amounting to more than £1,000
from a single source, whether as a single donation or as multiple
donations of more than £200 during the course of a calendar
year."
This category is intended to cover any financial
or material benefit (apart from donations to his or her constituency
association, which are covered by Category 4 (a)) in support of
a Member's role as a Member of Parliament.
Under Category 5, a Member must register:
"Any gift to the Member or the Member's spouse
or partner, or any material benefit, of a value greater than
1 percent of the current parliamentary salary from any company,
organisation or person within the UK which in any way relates
to membership of the House."
The threshold for registration under this provision
is one percent of a Member's salary (currently £590) or any
gifts of a lesser value from the same source which cumulatively
total more than £590 in the course of a calendar year. Category
5 (paragraph 28 of the Rules) specifically mentions benefits received
for "relief from indebtedness".
In your e-mail of 22 August responding to mine alerting
you to receipt of this complaint, you confirmed that you had made
a public appeal for funds to assist your libel actions against
the Daily Telegraph and Christian Science Monitor. All cheques
were made payable to George Galloway Legal Fund. Your solicitors,
Davenport Lyons, have administered the fund since its inception,
retaining the money pending the outcome of the cases. The appeal
has so far raised about £50,000. No donation has been for
more than £1,000: there have been fewer than 5 donations
of about this size.
You also say that you have received "no pecuniary
benefit" from the fund, and that if anyone has benefited
it is your lawyers.
I write now to ask for your formal response to the
complaint. I have, of course, your e-mail of 22 August and will
be happy to regard that as your response if you so wish. However,
I should be grateful if you would at least supplement that response
with your answers to the following:
Precisely how much money has your Appeal raised?
Who, specifically, has made donations and in each
case, of how much?
You say that you have not benefited from the Appeal.
Has any part of the Appeal been used to fund any part of the costs
you have incurred so far in connection with the court cases, or
in any other way so as to facilitate the actions you have brought?
Presumably, if the Daily Telegraph wins its appeal, the Appeal
Fund will be used to contribute towards meeting the legal costs
you will have incurred?
I have been contacted by a [Mr X], a journalist,
in connection with the complaint. [Mr X]tells me that your spokesman,
[Mr Y], claimed in the course of a telephone conversation that
you or your office sought my advice (or that of my office) on
whether the Appeal Fund should be registered. I am afraid that
my colleagues and I have been unable to trace any record of such
an approach, and the [Registrar of Members' Interests] tells me
that [a member of staff] in your office has suggested that [Mr
X] may have "got hold of the wrong end of the stick",
as no-one from your office has been in touch with us. I should
be grateful if you will clarify the position.
I am copying this letter to Mr Bays so that he can
add anything he wishes on this or other pertinent points. It would
be helpful if, when he responds, he could say whether the existence
of the Fund has in any way materially assisted the conduct of
your libel case so far. Was it, for example, of any significance
in your solicitor's decision to take on your case? He will realise
that I ask this and the questions at 3 above in order to be able
to establish whether you have yet received any pecuniary or material
benefit from the existence of the fund.
I enclose, by way of reminder, a note about procedures
which I routinely send Members who are the subject of a complaint.
4 October 2005
5. Letter
to the Commissioner from Mr George Galloway, 3 January 2006
I am, briefly, in the office and have sight of your
correspondence on The Legal Fund.
As I think I have informed you before, the legal
fund raised some £50,000. A very large number of individuals
donated small amounts. A small number - five I think - donated
£1,000. All were UK nationals. None were oil traders. All
will be reimbursed if the case settles satisfactorily.
Do I understand you wish the names of all the donors?
If so, why? Who will be given access to their names if you do
see them?
If I have the wrong end of the stick on this, forgive
me, I reviewed the correspondence in a rush.
If you really want to review the names of pensioners
from Preston and printers union branches from Penzance you have
my permission to do so. It is no secret. Just a waste of your
valuable time. You may request the list from Mr Bays with my agreement.
3 January 2006
6. Letter
to the Commissioner from Mr George Galloway, 29 March 2006
I was astonished by your finding that I should have
registered the existence of my Legal Fund, established to assist
me mounting libel actions against newspapers which had defamed
me. Many will be surprised that in the sea of sleaze enveloping
the mainstream political parties you have chosen to make this
finding.
The Register is a Register of Interests. I had no
interest in this fund. It would only have become a benefit to
me if I had lost the libel cases, at which point it would have
mitigated the almost £2 million pound legal bill I would
have been facing. At that point I would have registered it, just
before being forced to resign from the House due to impending
bankruptcy.
The Register is supposed to put into the public domain
details of members interests which might otherwise be unknown
to the public. This fund was publicly advertised - indeed that
was its point. I note that the fund was smaller than I had indicated
to you but that I was right in saying no donation was for more
than £1000, and that there were fewer "substantial"
donations than I had thought.
The answer to your question about what would happen
to any funds donated which were unable to be returned (though
I do not anticipate such a problem) is that they will be donated
to St Vincent de Paul charitable society in my constituency.
It is clear that this was a politically motivated,
vexatious complaint. I never received a penny from this appeal
or ever administered any of it. Its purpose was to help me obtain
justice - which, in the courts, I did. I anticipate none, however,
from your committee, which as I have frequently pointed out to
you is made up in its entirety by people who are, by definition,
my political adversaries and whose parties are amongst those sinking
beneath the aforementioned sea.
A system which cleared Tessa Jowell in 60 minutes
but which has spent months investigating this ridiculous complaint
- and found against me - is a system which will command little
public confidence or respect.
29 March 2006
