Appendix 2: Memorandum from Mr George
Galloway MP
I strongly dispute the argumentation, conclusion
and public interest justification of the report of the Parliamentary
Commissioner of Standards into the legal fund I publicly established
in 2003 to fight a series of libel actions to clear my name.
If this report were to be accepted by the Committee,
the result, far from enhancing the reputation of Parliament, would
further undermine both it and confidence in the arrangements for
ensuring Members' standards and transparency: it would be seen
to be unjust and lacking any sense of proportion or plausibility.
1) The report concedes that the existence of
the fund was in the public domain, but dismisses my argument that
this made its inclusion on the Register of Members' Interests
otiose. The report, however, does not address my point even as
it attempts to refute it.
The report says, "An interest may not be secret,
but may still be known only to a few, or to those in a particular
section of society." (par. 36) The fund was neither "secret",
nor "known only to a few or to those in a particular section
of society". It was in the public domain and its existence
widely reported in the national media.
2) In par. 11 the report says that the purpose
of Category 10 of the Register is "a record of interests
which might reasonably be thought to influence a Member in the
conduct of their Parliamentary duties". It further quotes
from that Category spelling out those duties. The same wording
is cited in par. 31 in the conclusion.
However, in applying this test (and concluding that
it has been met) in par. 40 of the report the wording and the
threshold are significantly changed to "knowledge of those
who had donated to it [the fund], particularly those who had donated
larger sums, might
well have been a potential source of influence"
(my emphasis). This is clearly a more speculative test than "reasonably
be thought to influence".
3) Any fair-minded application of the actual
test, rather than the loosened version which does not appear in
the regulations, could not possibly conclude that donations to
the fund could "reasonably be thought to influence me".
There were 981 donations to the fund. The report
accepts that they were from individuals who self evidently already
backed my effort to secure justice - "the text… is,
in effect, a circular letter to
supporters" (par.
5, my emphasis) - and that almost all the donations were small
amounts. Yet the report maintains that knowledge of "those
who had donated" even very small amounts might have influenced
me (under the sui generis test that appears in par. 40).
I find incredible - as will any reasonable observer
who takes an interest - the conclusion that the existence of a
donation of £10 from a pensioner peace activist to a legally
administered fund, which was to be repaid or the balance transferred
to charity, "might well" have made me "susceptible
to influence" (par. 47) in the exercise of my Parliamentary
duties.
As for the four donations that "significantly
exceeded" the then £550 threshold:
i) The sums are £1,000, £1,000, £800
and £822.50. How can a sum of £272.50 above the threshold
in a repayable fund over which I had no control possibly be described
as significant or be reasonably thought to influence me
in the exercise of my Parliamentary duties? No reasonable person
could find that credible or plausible: the donations were from
people who already supported my pre-existing political stances
and were clearly not aiming to influence my future conduct, which
has not changed.
ii) With reference to the Code of Conduct (cited
in par.7 of the report), it is likewise incredible and implausible
to maintain that such a sum donated to such a fund could be seen
as a "relevant interest in any proceeding of the House, of
its Committees, or in any communications with Ministers, Government
Departments or Executive Agencies".
4) The report concludes that "because Mr
Galloway's public reputation (which embraced his reputation as
a Member) was at the heart of the libel case, they were gifts
or benefits which related to his membership of the House"
(par. 53). This assertion comprises two claims - one moot, the
other casuistic:
i) My reputation is my reputation. It was that
which was at issue in the libel action. The fact that the false
and defamatory allegations against me were, in my view, politically
motivated should not alter my rights as a private individual to
fight a libel action. In drawing a conclusion detrimental to my
rights as an individual from the fact that I am a public figure,
the report is contrary to natural justice.
ii) The report's claim that there is material
significance in its assertion that my public reputation "embraced"
my "reputation as a Member" is tortuous in the extreme.
Mr Justice Eady, in finding for me and against the Daily Telegraph,
identified the public aspect of my reputation that was most germane
to the legal proceedings as my position in the leadership of the
anti-war movement. That was also the central motivation for those
who supported my libel action. To subsume this under my "membership
of the House" is tenuous at best and tendentious at worst.
Conclusion
If the above points are densely argued, it is only
because the report, in seeking to justify its conclusion, is itself
so opaque and self contradictory. It cavalierly alters the standard
for registration of interests in establishing what it says will
be an "important precedent".
So we have new standards invoked in this report and
an explicit admission that a precedent is being set—ie a
rule that was not existent when the transparently repayable legal
fund was established—and both these novelties are being
applied retrospectively and erroneously.
The report asks the Committee to "[bear] in
mind the overall purpose of the Register". Any reasonable
understanding of its overall purpose must conclude that this publicly
declared, legally administered and repayable fund based on small
public donations did not fall under the Register. It is certainly
not what the public is concerned about with regard to the unfolding
scandals surrounding the funding of three largest political parties
in Parliament and their associated undeclared interests, which
have now drawn the attention of the Metropolitan Police.
I hope the Committee shares that view. If not, you
ought to bear in mind the wider context. I find the timing of
this report, in the regulated period before the local government
elections in England, invidious, inappropriate and likely to leave
the Committee open to charges of being politically manipulated.
This report has been eight months in the writing and has been
delivered the week before polling day on 4 May. Not only do I
believe many members of the public will find the coincidence less
than accidental, I also believe they will share my question: how
is it possible for a system of Parliamentary and Ministerial scrutiny
to clear Tessa Jowell in 60 minutes yet spend more than half a
year investigating whether pensioners donating £10 to a repayable
fund have exerted some influence on me? This is not remotely reasonable;
it is preposterous and indefensible.
Procedures which are seen to be so partially applied
will deepen the contempt so many members of the public already
have for our political system. What conflict of interest could
I possibly have been subject to; what honours or favours could
I have been in a position to dispense? None.
The three largest Parliamentary parties are mired
in allegations of undeclared loans totalling reportedly over £35
million. There is a police investigation into whether the 1925
Act covering abuse of honours has been broken by members of this
government and those acting on its behalf. The chief donor to
the Liberal Democrats' war chest for last year's general election
has been arrested in Spain on charges of fraud.
If this report were to be accepted by the Committee,
that would be widely viewed not only as wrong and unjust but as
a politically motivated decision aimed at deflecting attention
from allegations of very serious misconduct by parties which are
represented on this Committee.
24 April 2006 George Galloway MP
| 
