The "Osborne e-mails" in full and what Labour "sources" are asking

Here are the e-mails sent between the office of the Tory Chief Whip (Nikki Da Costa) and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (Alda Barry), which were forwarded to journalists yesterday and which the Tories hoped would "clear" Osborne. Interesting to look at the date: after the donorgate row started in December. Below are the questions being circulated by "Labour sources" (who were very busy yesterday) to journalists.

-----

From : BARRY, Alda

Sent: 06 December 2007 14:44

To: Da Costa, Nikki

Subject: Overlap

Good morning Nikki

I promised Mr McLoughlin written confirmation of the areas of interest where Members must register both with me and also, under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA), with the Electoral Commission.

I hope the following brief summary is helpful, but Mr McLoughlin might also like to consult the Electoral Commission for more detail. I usually speak to Rachel Savage on 020 7271 xxxx

The Electoral Commission is

interested in 'political donations'. Benefits personal to the Member (eg tickets to sporting events) are not of interest to them.

The areas of overlap are concentrated in Categories 4 (Sponsorship) and 6 (Overseas visits). In the case of the latter, their threshold is higher than ours - they do not require the registration of visits worth £1,000 or less.

There are also a few interests which we register under Category 5 (Gifts, benefits and hospitality (UK)) which are regarded by the Commission as political donations which need to be registered with them if they are worth more than £1,000 - car parking passes or web-site design (if worth more than £1,000) are examples of these.

Under PPERA, it is the responsibility of the Member to report appropriately to the Electoral Commission. It has recently become the practice of this office to advise Members to consult the Commission if it appears to us that an interest should be registered with them, but I must emphasise that this is a purely informal arrangement and does not absolve Members from the responsibility for being aware of, and complying with, their obligations under the Act. Nor can this office advise, except in general terms, about the requirements of the Act.

This office and the Committee on Standards and Privileges are aware of some dissatisfaction among Members that they have to register the same interest twice. The Electoral Administration Act 2006 opens up the possibility of a 'one-stop shop' for reporting where the requirements overlap, and it is hoped that the House will, before too long, be given the opportunity to consider the implications of such a system and decide whether it wishes to implement it.

I hope this helps

Alda Barry

-----

From: Da Costa, Nikki

Sent: 07 December 2007 11:03

To: BARRY, ALda

Subject: RE: Overlap

Thanks Alda.

This is very useful

Kind regards

Nikki

Nikki da Costa

Special Adviser to the Opposition Chief Whip

-----

From : BARRY, Alda

Sent: 07 December 2007 13:53

To: Da Costa, Nikki

Subject: RE: Overlap

Nikki

I think I misled you just now. THe register deals with donations to a member's constituency association and not to central offices. Sorry.

Alda

-----

From: Da Costa, Nikki

Sent: 07 December 2007 14:03

To: BARRY, ALda

Subject: RE: Overlap

Thanks. Understood.

------

And here is an e-mail from "Labour sources" with more questions for Osborne ...

Which other members of your Shadow Cabinet receive donations via Conservative Central Office to fund their offices? And in the interests of transparency, why don't you today publish the names of the donors, and the value of their donations?

Why did it take 11 months for George Osborne to check with the registrar whether the donations he was receiving via CCO to run his private office should be declared in the register of members' interests? What prompted him to check this in December given he'd been receiving these donations since January?

When David Willetts received donations via CCO to run his private office in August, he immediately declared it in the register of members' interests. Why did he do that automatically when George Osborne waited 11 months even to check whether they should be registered?

When Oliver Letwin was Shadow Chancellor, he gave up his directorships in a number of merchant banks because of the potential conflict of interest. Do you think it's appropriate for George Osborne's office to be funded by the managers of hedge funds and major investment banks, who would stand to profit massively from his proposals on stamp duty on shares, capital gains tax and so on?

In November, your local party office was forced to pay back £7,400 in donations which had come from foreign donors, relating to an auction prize for a holiday in Sri Lanka. Presumably someone in your office must have solicited these donations. Who was that individual and have you sacked them?

Comments

[bill edmunds]

One problem being highlighted here is the way David Cameron and his colleagues are allowed to get away with brush-off style answers while the Government is treated as a bunch of sleazy opportunists. Isn't it about time that the Tories were questioned in the same way? David Cameron is especially good at insisting that he is totally honest in every way. From the start he has got away with murder.

[christina speight]

The central fact is that, despite all the smokescreen being put up by Labour, Osborne notified the Electoral Commission in full and on time of this donation which was to the party not to him. He has done absolutely nothing illegal at all.

[Chuck Unsworth]

Who is in power here? The Conservatives? Who was it who pushed the legislation through parliament? Who was going to be 'purer than pure' or some such garbage?

If people think that by diversionary comment they can assuage genuine public outrage at such duplictousness from a supposedly moral government, they need major medical intervention. Only maybe it had better not be in an NHS Trust - they might not get out alive.

[Alex]

Bill Edmunds. Would you care to substantiate your allegations. Particularly by reference to the relevant regulations. I suspect you won't because as ever there is nothing irregular about the funding to Osborne. So what if Willetts registered twice. That doesn't mean everybody else has to do the same.

The Labour allegations are pure innuendo and their purpose is clear. The Labour party is the sleaziest political organisation this country has ever seen.

[Jonathan]

The difference is Osborne's donations had at least been publicly acknowledged - Hain's not so.

Why did it take Osborne 11 months to double check? Presumably because funding has only just become a political hot potato and he's checking that there are no skeletons - like every other MP!

However this issue cannot be read in the same light as Hain's whose donations have reached him in a secret and devious manner.

[Chris Higgins]

Could it be because the Government are a bunch of sleazy opportunists? After all, Osborne was happy to submit himself to the Today Programme on the issue, Hain refuses to discuss it.

There is no moral equivalence at all between their respective positions.

[Richard Jenkins]

Oh, Bill Edmunds, try to keep up. If you can't see the difference, stick to the sports pages.

[Anthony Jaynes]

From the emails above
"I must emphasise that this is purely informal arrangement and does not absolve Members from the responsibility for being aware of, and complying with, their obligations under the Act"
So why didn't Mr Osborne just comply with the act and declare the donations when he took up the position of Shadow Chancellor. Why indeed I ask myself, was it because the scheme was devised at the very top of the Conservative Party to avoid transparency, a scam to avoid the public knowing which big money person is buying Shadow Ministers and dictating policy. Or was it, there's one law for the Conservative Party and, one law for others. It will be interesting to see how the media act in the next week or two. I suspect it will die a death, one must not be too critical of the Saint David Cameron Conservative Party must one, otherwise have another Labour Party victory, God forbid.

[Praguetory]

The follow up questions from 'Labour sources' are pretty weak. If Labour wants to know who funds the Tories it is there in the books at the Electoral Commission.

[Dirty European socialist]

I cannot see how the tories can gert away with this. I suggest this may cause the resignation of the chairman, the leader, and the chancellor. As this was put through Tory HQ. As well as all those who knew of this. Hain would be a loss to labour, but the tories may lose their entire leadership team in a massive own goal. Why does the BBC not cover this story. It seesm the bbc are the only people who do not cover this.

[Researcher]

Out of interest, Nikki Da Costa is the Spad to the Chief Whip, not in Osborne's office. As for Dirty European Socialist's comment, it's barely worth the paper (?) it's written on.

The two are completely different. Osborne voluntarily declared the amount to the Electoral Commission. Hain did not.

[Eddie]

Richard Jenkins - you seem to have missed the point through a selective partial quote.
"Under PPERA, it is the responsibility of the Member to report appropriately to the Electoral Commission. It has recently become the practice of this office to advise Members to consult the Commission if it appears to us that an interest should be registered with them..."

Immediately proceeds your quote of

..."I must emphasise that this is purely informal arrangement and does not absolve Members from the responsibility for being aware of, and complying with, their obligations under the Act"

Of course the Conservatives, unlike Hain, did report the donations to the Electoral Commission as is required by Law referred to in the quote.

Why, if Hain was distracted, by his job, from his legal duty to disclose (Parliament was in recess at the time so no doubt it was less onerous than at other times), did he have time to solicit the 17 undeclared donations (as disclosed in his interview with the Guardian)? Donations used to pay, in large part, the Labour party their 15% tithe - in August / September, as the leadership rules required.

Perhaps it was the fundraising efforts themselves, and meeting the Labour Party requirements of donating to them that distracted him?

Although that doesn't sound so worthy, does it?

[Chris Paul]

Don't think Osborne has declared these at all has he? CCHQ declared them? But Osborne didn't either to EC or RMI did he?

I would expect things to be declared by each accounting unit whose hands they go through wouldn't you?

If O was 11 months asking for guidance - incidentally guidance which does not say he needn't declare to both - and his amount was almost five times as much as the amount H declared a few months late it actually looks like O and anyone doing likewise is very seriously at fault.