Will the police be called in?
Last week I reported that the worst Peter Hain had to fear was "severe embarrassment" but last night I reported that the might call in the police to investigate. Why the difference? Well, that's down to the Commission.
I called them last week to ask what penalties were available to them for MPs who make late declarations. I reported what I was told - namely that "the Electoral Commission has no powers to penalise individuals or parties for failing to fully declare donations.鈥
The Act (PPERA 2000) which established the law on political funding sets out an escalating series of fines for the late submission of accounts but it does not make any provision for late declarations of donations themselves. Indeed, the Commission are lobbying to be given new powers and what they call "a more proportionate and flexible sanctions regime" in any new party funding legislation.
That, it turns out, was only half the story. The Commission do have another alternative to the slap on the wrist. They can call in the police to investigate a possible breach of the law which could lead to a case in the magistrate鈥檚 court and a possible 拢5,000 fine (see below for the detail).
I am now told that both options are open and under consideration. They may be discussed at a meeting which takes place later this week of the Electoral Commissioners - the great and the good who take any significant decision that cannot merely be left to the Commission's staff.
The Commissioners face an unappealing choice:
- administer a slap on the wrist and face accusations of letting a senior politician hold their rules in contempt by declaring he was "too busy" to meet his obligations
- or call in the police and, as a result, risk ending a minister's frontline career before he has chance to defend himself in court
I suspect they may be tempted to try to invent a middle way - reminding politicians that they have called for the power to punish late declarers with fines and saying that this is precisely the sort of case in which, if they had them, they'd use them. They may hope that would be seen as a slap in the face, not merely on the wrist. But would it?
This is the text of an Electoral Commission document sent to all MPs called Donations And Loans: Guidance For Members Of Parliament - November 2006.
7.9 Relevant donations must be reported to the Commission within 30 days of the date on which the donation was accepted or returned (Schedule 7, Paragraphs 10(1) and 11(1)). Reporting forms can be found in Appendix D, 'Reporting forms'.
7.10 Important: it is an offence not to submit a donation report within this time limit, or to submit an incomplete or false report of donations. Appendix C, 'Penalties' lists the offences that can be committed in relation to the donation requirements in PPERA.
I'm 
Comments
Why is the 91热爆 trying to conflate the Hain and Osborne cases?
The emails to Osborne appear fairly clear that he didn't have to declare the donations. And he had already declared them to the Electoral Commission anyway.
Meanwhile Hain didn't declare serious amounts of money on the fairly ridiculous excuse that he employs incompetents. And most of that money was chanelled through what could be described as a front organisation. And the donors were wealthy individuals with political views that the supposedly left wing Hain publicly criticises.
The 'yes I made a mistake, but don't consider it a serious one. And as I won't do it again, I'm going to carry on in the job' complacency is endemic.
A spell of incarceration for Hain et al is required to get them to take their responsibilities seriously.
Couldn't happen to a nicer man, could it?
The 'Right Honourable' tag and all associated connotations needs to be dropped as soon as possible because there is a lot that is not 'right' or 'honourable' about some members.
These MP's should not be set apart from the rest of the English people in this respect, it just diminishes the democracy, muted as it is in England.
Yet another newslog inferring that only Mr Hain has fallen foul of the rules governing MP's. Lets us please have some balance, even if it is only in passing, that the Labour Party has also reported Mr Osborne, and according to Newsnight, Mr Cameron took undeclared flights during his election campain over two years ago.
Why I ask myself does the 91热爆 accept at face value, with no investigation into the consequences, all that Osborne and Cameron say. Who would gain by the proposed tax changes advocated by Cameron/Osborne. It wouldn't be those who made back door donations to the Shadow Minister, would it?
What another mess, as we slowly head for state funding.
Surely a police investigation should be undertaken, if only to get to the bottom of the problem. No one can say that Mr Hain has been very open and honest in his statements over the past few weeks.
This sounds very much like the Mandelson and Blunkett affairs all over again. Whenever they tried to draw a line under things more revelations leaked out.
Now we have a minister who tells us that everything is above board and that only minor donations were over looked. Then we find out that minor relates to 拢105,000 - not in my dictionary of monetary value, it's more than my house cost!
Let's give the commission new powers to enforce the rules. Let's see things like this stamped out once and for all.
Everyone knew all this week Nick...and that's without ringing up the Electoral Commission.
Interestingly article 7.9 does not instruct members to report donations to both the Commission AND the Register of Members' Interests, this would appear to get George Osbourne off the hook.
But how about those flights and helicopter jaunts reported on Newsnight Nick?
Why not just let him and all the others get away with it. How can they be expected to be responsible for discussing, creating/repealing laws and managing there implementation in society with huge and glaring conflict of interest of be an member of society subject to it's laws.
Nick; accepting a donation and then declaring it is a very simple process. I would suggest therefore, that having failed to implement such a simple process, Haine probably had something he wanted hidden...and he's been caught. Simple as that. The public are sadly used to the fact that our politicians are on the make most of the time and Haine won't be the only sweating at the moment. We need to see an independent administrator set up to manage all political donations to all parties (paid for out of an annual donation direct from MPs salaries). That is the only way to stop this ludicrous charade which takes up time better spent actually doing the job they are paid to do...namely serve our interests.
I take it, therefore, that your post should be seen as a pertinent reminder to the Electoral Commission of their moral obligations!
The Electoral Commission do have a problem, in that if they refer Peter Hain to the police, they should surely report all the other politicians that have also broken the law - Harriet Harman etc. Is that really feasible?
And a quick look on their website shows that literally thousands of pounds of donations are reported late by parties and accounting units every single quarter. Would it be reasonable to act in the case of Peter Hain and not these?
PPERA is a piece of legislation that is full of holes. The recent legislation that amended some parts of electoral law really missed the boat in this case. Should the Commission have done more to make sure that the Government acted to make them an effective regulator?
It is vital that Electoral Commission take a firm stance on Peter Hain, not just because he is a minister (therefore having to be held to the highest of standards) but also because of the large sum of money involved. 拢100,000 is far more than a single parliamentary constituency candidate is allowed when fighting for a Westminster seat so it amazes me that such sums can remain undeclared (or even spent) during an internal party election.
Passing legislation which is subsequently not enforced puts you on dangerous road. However, this seems to have become the leitmotif for the government; hunting bans; using a telephone while driving; non declared party funding. How do they expect us to take debate seriously when they don't take their own legisaltion seriously?
Have you considered what happens if the Electoral Commission decides Hain has committed offence, but doesn't call in the police? As I see it, there's nothing to stop a member of the public, or a political opponent, making a complaint to the police themselves. Just as the SNP did over loans for peerages.
"administer a slap on the wrist and face..."
I'd like to see that.
I really hope the police don't get involved because it will simply delay matters further. A simple apology and resignation from the front bench would be punishment enough.
Those posters who persist with the red herrings that are the Cameron and Osborne stories need to understand that they declared their donations to at least one of the two bodies. If they were trying to hide something they wouldn't have declared to either.
Peter Hain did not declare over 拢100,000 to either the Electoral Commission or the Register For Member's Interests. Therefore he should go.
Surprisingly, Nick, I've yet to hear Peter Hain uttering the standard ministerial mantra in these circumstances: 'I've done nothing wrong...'
Surely the "crime" a radical socialist should resign for is: Spending near to 拢200,000.00 on getting himself voted fifth out of six for an internal party position. Surely a better cause would be the homeless and those needing social care.
Even If he resigns it's clear that he's done such a great job that his invaluable contribution will require a reappointment as soon as possible.
PS. His pay and pension are probably already very secure, unlike the millions who suffer his departments No If's No but's etc
Nick,
The reference to 'severe embarressment' was I believe Hain's words passing judgement on himself
This 'arrogance of office' will continue until an MP is made an example of, hopefully with a prison sentence.
It depresses me, taxes from my very modest pension help to pay for these useless and incompetent people.
Following up the comment from BillG Peter Hain managed to spend the equivalent of 拢500 for each Labour MP.
If any of this expenditure involved "entertainment" has this been properly registered by the recipiants?
I remain insanely relaxed about this affair. The reality is imperfect rules, conduct, and attitudes have been flushed out and a proper measure of accountability, consensus, and improvement will flow from this. By putting aside the usual egotistical beating of chests and gnashing of teeth the superior politician will slide through without effort, be unscathed, and have the crowd roaring approval.
It's examples like that suggest the Tao is a better guide to political success than Machiavelli. Grasping for authority and influence is an illusion. It promises success but collapses under its own weight. Poor thinking, insensitivity, and rule by fear creates a ghetto. Open and flexible minds, and letting things happen naturally produces a longer lasting and more pleasing result.
The Prime Minister has taken a new and daring path. Instead of trying to force the issue he is relaxing in the moment. This gives space for people to understand the issue, weigh reactions, and a more positive consensus unfold of its own accord. By being silent, gentle, and patient the people will herald achievement and agreement, and will be unable to stop loving him.
All hail blessed leader!
"7.9 Relevant donations MUST be reported to the Commission within 30 days of the date on which the donation was accepted or returned (Schedule 7, Paragraphs 10(1) and 11(1))."
Sums it up really, if an MP was too busy to comply with the regulations he should find more time in his life to do so.
Start taking his responsibilities as an MP seriously and he might then be good enough to be a Minister.
Has Peter Hain become a victim of working in Wales and being regulated by Westminster?
The row over Peter Hain will hopefully highlight the lack of regulation that goes on inside the country for which he is Minister of State and that as everyone knows is Wales. What is less well known is the constitutional black hole that Neil Kinnock warned about concerning devolution has created a situation whereby the rules or relevant laws are simply ignored when it is politically convenient to do so. Moreover, these issues would not see the light of day nor would they be reported. Would anyone make a fuss? Well no; the reason being that any complaint is a waste of time as it is simply ignored and the lack of regulation means people get away with it. However, change is on the way as much of the abuse of power and corruption that goes on is committed by exempt charities and the warnings that private schools could lose their charitable status also applies to the Church and Universities. It seems that the Charity Commissioners have been left to fill the black hole of regulation abdicated by the Welsh Assembly Government for fear of not only being seen as ineffectual to stop it, but of actively concealing it from public knowledge.
What does it take to get any of these "HONOURABLE" Labour MP'S like Peter Hain to resign? It is just not good enough to utter the usual Tonyism of "Look - I may have made a mistake - but lessons have been learned so let's draw a line under it and move on ".
I tried that tack with a traffic policeman but still finished up with a 拢60 fine and 3 penalty points !
This has to be the most corrupt and incompetent government ever!
Nick
I've just read that Peter Hain's local constituency party has given him there full support - WHAT A SURPRISE!
GLJ
There's a very simple solution to this.
Legislate that whenever an MP has failed to properly declare a donation, they are given a fine equal to the amount that was undeclared.
An important question that also needs to be asked is how, if he is incapable of managing the administration of declaring donations, can he possibly be relied upon to perform his duties as a Secretary of State which are far more complicated.