Skip to main content

Osborne and Hain - donation declarations

It is important for people to know who any substantial funders of politicians are. Such declarations of interest should be public. However, there has to be a sensible approach to techical issues.

George Osborne declared his funding to the Electoral Commission, but not the parliamentary commissioner for standards. I don't see this as anything other than a technical breach.

Peter Hain, however, failed to declare his funding sources to anyone. At the same time an attempt to conceal the sources was made. It is this attempt to conceal the sources of funding that causes me most concern.

The reason for declaring funding sources is to identify whether or not politicians are offering "cash for questions" type deals. If we don't know who the paymaster is then we don't know which tunes to look out for.

There has, however, to be a sensible and coherent approach to declarations. I need to declare things to Birmingham City Council, The Electoral Commission, The Liberal Democrats and the Parliamentary Commissioner for standards.

The rules are different, the cycles are different and it is easy by mistake to declare to one and not another. For example dormant companies are declared to local authorities, but only trading companies to the Parliamentary Commissioner.

In a sense we need a politicians funding register so the funding streams anyone active in politics (and potentially as a candidate as well) can be identified without a massive bureaucratic overload.

For a period of time I had to declare when I refused a dinner worth £25 or over. Because it was too much hassle to find out which were worth so much I simply declared everything through the BCC Deputy Leader's Office. Potentially this is a solution although declaring when one turns down an offer of something does seem a bit unnecessary.

This area of multiple declarations does need to be looked at in detail. Hiding a substantial funding stream cannot be acceptable and I don't think Peter Hain will stick this one out.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…